How do you decide when you've won a debate?

[Alceste]

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. It takes all kinds.

 

[freethinker44]

Whenever the other side devolves into name calling, I always consider that a win. And an extension of that, when I am debating a religious person and all they have left for an argument is shouting bible verses, I consider that a win.

Semantics. If they offer no other defense or offense other than the precise meaning of the words being used, I consider that a win-by-default. Continued use of pretty much any of the logical fallacies I would consider a win-by-default because I don't consider them valid arguments. so if they refuse to or can't produce a valid argument for or against my argument, I win.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How do you decide how you are doing in a debate, and who, if anyone, is "winning"?

If I'm taking part in a debate, I'm winning.

How do you go about crafting a knock-out post?

I'm not aware of how to post any other kind.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't really debate, if I did I would have to make sure that what I am debating about is true, or can be proven as fact, if one debates just to try to prove their right, then maybe they should't be debating. I see a lot of debating here on things that just cannot be proven either way, in this case it should be simply a discussion.

 

[Bismillah]

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?

When someone else learns something and better understands my perspective I think that's when I win a debate. Your response could be as thorough as a proof, but until you can convey your ideas in a way that are understood and received by the opposing side I don't think you win a debate.

 

[Alceste]

Whenever the other side devolves into name calling, I always consider that a win. And an extension of that, when I am debating a religious person and all they have left for an argument is shouting bible verses, I consider that a win.

Semantics. If they offer no other defense or offense other than the precise meaning of the words being used, I consider that a win-by-default. Continued use of pretty much any of the logical fallacies I would consider a win-by-default because I don't consider them valid arguments. so if they refuse to or can't produce a valid argument for or against my argument, I win.

That sounds just like my own rules! Except that for me, the scripture quoters aren't even playing. They're like the background or something. There's no more satisfaction to counting points against scripture quoters than shooting at a tree in Tombraider.

 

[Alceste]

When someone else learns something and better understands my perspective I think that's when I win a debate. Your response could be as thorough as a proof, but until you can convey your ideas in a way that are understood and received by the opposing side I don't think you win a debate.

I think of actually changing somebody's mind as a major power-up. It happens very rarely, but when it does I feel pretty good about myself for a little while. I also occasionally get my own mind changed, and that does not feel like "losing".

Actually, come to think of it, I don't "lose" debates very often. If someone proves me wrong, I change my mind and we both win.

 

[ChristineES]

I believe that almost all of my points end up in a stalemate with those who disagree with me. But I am not here to win, just to let what I believe known to others and to learn something new. If someone learns from anything I say, I am happy. If I learn something from someone else, I am even happier.

 

[ametist]

When there are smileys or thank yous exchanged.

 

[Alceste]

I believe that almost all of my points end up in a stalemate with those who disagree with me. But I am not here to win, just to let what I believe known to others and to learn something new. If someone learns from anything I say, I am happy. If I learn something from someone else, I am even happier.

I don't know, ChristineES - you're a subtle one. Kind of sneaky. When I start out disagreeing with you I usually end up changing my mind. You're a debate ninja.

 

[Alceste]

When there are smileys or thank yous exchanged.

Thank you.

 

[Bismillah]

I think of actually changing somebody's mind as a major power-up. It happens very rarely, but when it does I feel pretty good about myself for a little while. I also occasionally get my own mind changed, and that does not feel like "losing".

I agree, it is very hard to get someone to change their mind especially when it comes to passionately held beliefs such as politics or religion (at which point one has to be pragmatic as to who to debate and who the audience is).

I think though that should be the ultimate goal, to convey your thought process eloquently enough so that other people reconsider their own preconceptions.

And I agree with your second part as well, a quote that I look back to illustrate it

"I never once argued with anyone hoping to win the debate; rather I always wished that the truth would come from his side." by Imam Shafi'i

 

[Sees]

I just decide when to pack up and move on. Maybe when the fun, excitement, integrity... all get overshadowed with annoyance.

It's sooner rather than later when there is a sense that the winning of arguments is more important than what is being argued about. Some get off on debate just for debate's sake, too "empty" for me though.

If I get the hint that there is no more to learn from the guy/gal than there is from debating one of my 3 year old sons on when is bedtime...declare victory and then take off lol

Incessant quoting of any texts - academic, religious, don't matter...is a pet-peeve of mine.

 

[Alceste]

I just decide when to pack up and move on. Maybe when the fun, excitement, integrity... all get overshadowed with annoyance.

It's sooner rather than later when there is a sense that the winning of arguments is more important than what is being argued about. Some get off on debate just for debate's sake, too "empty" for me though.

If I get the hint that there is no more to learn from the guy/gal than there is from debating one of my 3 year old sons on when is bedtime...declare victory and then take off lol

Incessant quoting of any texts - academic, religious, don't matter...is a pet-peeve of mine.

Actually, that is a pet peeve of mine too - deconstructing someone's entire post into a bunch of single sentences, each of which is objected to one by one for some really stupid reason, and if you bother to read the whole thing you find the original point being made has been completely lost in the meticulous dissection - and was never addressed.

The "goal" of debate for me is a battle for or against an idea, not a person or people. In that respect, I genuinely want the best idea to win, and it doesn't really matter if it's one of mine.

Although it usually is. :takeabow:

 

[Ouroboros]

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 don't feel I ever win...

Even when I think I've made a complete knock-out post, there's always that stupid little other thing that comes up that's debated instead.

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. It takes all kinds.

It's just an addiction for me. Can't stop even though I know there's no end. :/

I tried using the ignore functions, but it's too intriguing not to see what dumb things the other person posted... And I can't help to point something minor out either. So the dumbness continues...

Here's the strange thing though. At times I admit that I was wrong and apologize. But it's very rare that anyone do it to me. It must indicate that I'm wrong most of the time, I guess.

 

[Alceste]

I don't feel I ever win...

Even when I think I've made a complete knock-out post, there's always that stupid little other thing that comes up that's debated instead.


It's just an addiction for me. Can't stop even though I know there's no end. :/

I tried using the ignore functions, but it's too intriguing not to see what dumb things the other person posted... And I can't help to point something minor out either. So the dumbness continues...

Here's the strange thing though. At times I admit that I was wrong and apologize. But it's very rare that anyone do it to me. It must indicate that I'm wrong most of the time, I guess.

I resisted the ignore function for ages, but I love it now. There are huge benefits to filtering out the low-hanging fruit. It makes it way easier to discuss ideas with others who actually care about discussing ideas.

I don't know about other people, but I rarely publicly acknowledge changing my mind because of a debate. A small part of that is pride, but the larger part is that it may actually take days or weeks of contemplation for the "change" to occur, by which time the discussion is dead. It takes a while to integrate new or different ideas in with the rest of my ideas, and it's important to me that the whole big picture in my brain is coherent.

OTOH, if I get a fact wrong, I have no problem immediately acknowledging it. Opinions are trickier.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually, that is a pet peeve of mine too

Just because something is a "pet peeve" of yours doesn't make it wrong. Stop with the straw man arguments, please.

- deconstructing someone's entire post into a bunch of single sentences,

As anybody educated in philosophy knows, Paul de Man said about deconstruction that, "it's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." Hence, your claims of deconstruction are both misguided and inaccurate.

each of which is objected to one by one for some really stupid reason,

How else, other than "one by one," can someone object to your arguments? Again, your logical fallacies aren't doing your argument any favors.

and if you bother to read the whole thing you find the original point being made has been completely lost in the meticulous dissection - and was never addressed.

I fail to see what your problem with being meticulous is. The definition of meticulous is "showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise." If one aims to precise, then they should be meticulous. You seem to be arguing against precision - a position fraught with problems of imprecision.

The "goal" of debate

"Goals," are for soccer. Debates should have an objective.

for me is a battle for or against an idea, not a person or people.

Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Similarly, Marie Curie said, "Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

Of course, both of these are quotes by mere women, and thus, can be safely ignored.

In that respect, I genuinely want the best idea to win, and it doesn't really matter if it's one of mine.

I fail to see what this has to do with your pet peeves or any of your other red herrings. You seem to have completely gone off-topic.

Although it usually is. :takeabow:

What were we talking about again?

 

[BSM1]

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. It takes all kinds.

If you can get the other person to spurt out something like "...oh yeah? Well you're another" then you can probably sit back and light up the ol' cigar.

 

[Alceste]

Just because something is a "pet peeve" of yours doesn't make it wrong. Stop with the straw man arguments, please.



As anybody educated in philosophy knows, Paul de Man said about deconstruction that, "it's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." Hence, your claims of deconstruction are both misguided and inaccurate.



How else, other than "one by one," can someone object to your arguments? Again, your logical fallacies aren't doing your argument any favors.



I fail to see what your problem with being meticulous is. The definition of meticulous is "showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise." If one aims to precise, then they should be meticulous. You seem to be arguing against precision - a position fraught with problems of imprecision.



"Goals," are for soccer. Debates should have an objective.



Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Similarly, Marie Curie said, "Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

Of course, both of these are quotes by mere women, and thus, can be safely ignored.



I fail to see what this has to do with your pet peeves or any of your other red herrings. You seem to have completely gone off-topic.

What were we talking about again?

OMG, that made me laugh. I can't frubal you any more, but thanks for that. :clap

 

[Alceste]

If you can get the other person to spurt out something like "...oh yeah? Well you're another" then you can probably sit back and light up the ol' cigar.

Yeah, "I know you are but what am I" - automatic fail.