-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you decide when you've won a debate?
- Thread starter Alceste
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
Oh yeah? I'm rubber, you're glue.
By points, i guess, for a large part. More often than not a topic will have many aspects to consider. When those aspects get addressed, judging them separately first is much easier than judging who's right about an entire topic, so that helps. The person who scores more points is usually more capable of debate, and less often, but also usually, is better grounded in knowledge about the subject, or, has the winning charisma to look like they scored a point even when they didn't.
So, that's a part of it. Of course, as clearly implied, many times more points can be scored while the person is still actually wrong, so it's not a bullet proof system, but there are other considerations to reduce the margin of error a little. 'Signs'. Usually, but not always, the person who has more basis to what they're saying will be calmer, will be more precise, more confident, and resort less to personal attacks and emotional appeals.
Usually, but not always, evidence can be provided in support of points made, so a person who has a habit of providing evidence for their points, is more likely to be more honest and sincere, and to have a basis to their argument, in contrast to someone who prefers to shy away from doing that, or is incapable of doing that often, or at all.
Finally, also usually, someone who has strong basis to what they're saying will not let several posts addressing his own post go without attempting to address them at least once, while in contrast, i personally observe that people who are either not good at debate or are not confident about their position will often ignore many posts and conveniently just address the ones they think offer a good chance of being refuted, or at least having the appearance of such, and they often don't do a good job with even that one or fewer posts.
Not to be redundant, but i usually am; all the above are generalities rather than absolutes, as i tried to make clear, and there are other signs i'm forgetting right now. Based on all of the above and similar considerations, i judge myself to be someone who is very capable of debate, but who is also not nearly as often actually 'right'. Meaning that i think i can look like i'm winning much more often than i actually am.
I tend to participate in threads where either there is no way to win, or actual enhanced understanding of each other's stance is the victory itself.
It can be very frustrating or very rewarding.
I noticed that fairly often one side has clearly lost, been demolished even, but simply fails to notice it.
Sometimes I wonder if/how often it happened with me. I guess I will never know unless someone gets the nerve to tell me.
It can be very frustrating or very rewarding.
I noticed that fairly often one side has clearly lost, been demolished even, but simply fails to notice it.
Sometimes I wonder if/how often it happened with me. I guess I will never know unless someone gets the nerve to tell me.
And they decided who will win (based upon whose side they're on) before it even began.
McBell
Unbound
Ending a debate??
That's like ending a party
That's like ending a party
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You know what I love most from your response? That I'm not in your ignore list!!!
So very true. Many times it's a matter of reading and talking about a subject for years and then suddenly... oooh... now I get it, kinda thing.
We're a stubborn species.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Moment of truth, how vulnerable will we allow our little bubbles to be
A practice of mine, that I ignore or jump over frequently, is each day when one of my personal dogmatic stances or truth-nuggets is brought into to play - attack it and poke at it to see if it deserves to stay, or if it must transform or go away.
To become great you must be your own greatest critic, someone said or I imagined. I see other people as helping this process along...assuming they are playing the game earnestly.
I always see the essence of spirituality being openness and essence of philosophy being focus. If both seem absent it's just communally wasting time.
Anyways, I'm intentionally extra wrong at times just to spur things along
Most of the time, the only reason I go into a debate is because there's some (usually new) troll irritating the hell out of everybody, but somehow managing to stay within the rules while they're doing it.
My mission, in such cases, is to irritate the hell out of the troll while also managing to stay within the rules.
My definite win is when the troll finally gives up and reports me for something that isn't even close to a rule violation.
That's my kick-back-and-smoke-a-cigar moment.
My mission, in such cases, is to irritate the hell out of the troll while also managing to stay within the rules.
My definite win is when the troll finally gives up and reports me for something that isn't even close to a rule violation.
That's my kick-back-and-smoke-a-cigar moment.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
Completely leaving a debate after you have presented your initial point in the finest detail and not sticking around to argue your point (arguing only weakens it) is the best way to 'win' a debate.I flipping love debating ideas with people on the internet. That's my video games.
But unlike video games, there's no levels, no points and no endings in an internet debate. Internet debates just go on forever, getting stupider and stupider as the page count climbs. So I've made some rules up myself, which I will share later, to efficiently determine the "win, lose or draw" factor and move on to new discussions.
What about you? How do you decide how you are doing in a debate, and who, if anyone, is "winning"? How do you go about crafting a knock-out post?
I understand there are some people here who actually want to discuss ideas and learn about other points of view, and that's cool too.
Most times I have received a frubal, is for my initial post in whatever debate I respond to.
If your initial argument/presentation is clear, the debate is 'won' before it has even begun.
This is how I decide it.
Also, it depends a lot on who is 'keeping score'.
Alceste
Vagabond
By points, i guess, for a large part. More often than not a topic will have many aspects to consider. When those aspects get addressed, judging them separately first is much easier than judging who's right about an entire topic, so that helps. The person who scores more points is usually more capable of debate, and less often, but also usually, is better grounded in knowledge about the subject, or, has the winning charisma to look like they scored a point even when they didn't.
So, that's a part of it. Of course, as clearly implied, many times more points can be scored while the person is still actually wrong, so it's not a bullet proof system, but there are other considerations to reduce the margin of error a little. 'Signs'. Usually, but not always, the person who has more basis to what they're saying will be calmer, will be more precise, more confident, and resort less to personal attacks and emotional appeals.
Usually, but not always, evidence can be provided in support of points made, so a person who has a habit of providing evidence for their points, is more likely to be more honest and sincere, and to have a basis to their argument, in contrast to someone who prefers to shy away from doing that, or is incapable of doing that often, or at all.
Finally, also usually, someone who has strong basis to what they're saying will not let several posts addressing his own post go without attempting to address them at least once, while in contrast, i personally observe that people who are either not good at debate or are not confident about their position will often ignore many posts and conveniently just address the ones they think offer a good chance of being refuted, or at least having the appearance of such, and they often don't do a good job with even that one or fewer posts.
Not to be redundant, but i usually am; all the above are generalities rather than absolutes, as i tried to make clear, and there are other signs i'm forgetting right now. Based on all of the above and similar considerations, i judge myself to be someone who is very capable of debate, but who is also not nearly as often actually 'right'. Meaning that i think i can look like i'm winning much more often than i actually am.
Awesome - that was a very thorough and insightful reply. I completely share your views. In fact, I often browse other people's debates and pick a winner without doing more than skimming the discussion to see who has cited more references, maintained decorum, stuck to the subject, addressed criticism directly and competently, etc. Then I conclude that whatever they're saying, they're probably right, so that becomes my own "soft" opinion.
. (If I already have an opinion, I always participate in the debate.)That said, I have noticed there are people who always lose by these criteria, whatever the subject, as if on purpose. I'm not prepared to accept that these people don't have any informed opinions of their own, but they're certainly here for a different reason than I am. I usually end up filtering their posts for a better game.
Alceste
Vagabond
I don't know - I still recall a few of Debater Slayer's first few discussions on the subject of women's rights on RF. That dude is my hero. You should ask him about it some time.
I'm not sure whether people don't notice, or whether it's just pride and a competitive spirit that keeps them waving their arms around long after the goal has been scored. OK, I'm pretty sure there are a few people that are completely clued out, but when someone starts resorting to outrageous straw men and crude personal attacks and avoiding addressing any of your points directly, you can be pretty confident they realize they've lost the debate on some level. They're just being sore losers.
I've got the nerve to tell you - you do very well in general but tend to "lose" debates on drug prohibition. Your arguments are very rational and persuasive, but you would do much better if you could find statistical evidence to back up your position. You tend to rely on social harm based arguments, but you need to demonstrate (with facts and references) that decriminalization causes greater social harm than prohibition to win that debate. Just my two bits. Take it or leave it, but if you take it I look forward to the day you can beat me in that debate.
Completely leaving a debate after you have presented your initial point in the finest detail and not sticking around to argue your point (arguing only weakens it) is the best way to 'win' a debate.
Most times I have received a frubal, is for my initial post in whatever debate I respond to.
If your initial argument/presentation is clear, the debate is 'won' before it has even begun.
This is how I decide it.
Also, it depends a lot on who is 'keeping score'.
Damn, that's awfully efficient. Well played, sir.
I just don't think there's any way to say that one person or the other has won an internet debate. Internet debates almost never change anyone's opinions. And you can have a side with all or almost all the facts on its side, and almost no or no facts on the other side, it still won't change anyone's opinion.
Debating on the internet is like masturbation -- you're doing it for your own pleasure, not to "score" with someone. So, I tend to just ejaculate my opinion, then leave the moment I start to repeat myself too much. Besides, why would I ever want to get into a long term relationship with someone who was fool enough to dispute the fact I'm almost always right?
Debating on the internet is like masturbation -- you're doing it for your own pleasure, not to "score" with someone. So, I tend to just ejaculate my opinion, then leave the moment I start to repeat myself too much. Besides, why would I ever want to get into a long term relationship with someone who was fool enough to dispute the fact I'm almost always right?
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Dustin changed my own opinion on prostitution, right here on RF, by beating me in a debate. So there.
Dustin changed my own opinion on prostitution, right here on RF, by beating me in a debate. So there.
No, dear. You changed your mind after listening to Dustin. Very few people do that, you know: It's called, "being intelligent", and it's rare to almost nonexistent. And no one, but no one, has their mind changed for them against their will.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I normally seek to talk with someone, to show another angle, to inform. I don't see a point in debating for the sake of "winning", an attitude which already assumes fixed answers and bending a thread to that aim (a winning answer). This is still the Internet, people arent normally too informed, and the debate for winning mentality expresses it well. My real debates usually take place in 'real life', where people are held to higher standards.