Tips for a nice debate

[Estro Felino]

Hi guys how are you?
Here I would like to discuss what a nice debate should be. Not only online. In general. Even in real life, if you are a university professor debating with a colleague, or a scholar / expert invited to a TV show.


As you guys know, Socrates used to say that truth can be found through debate. Debate, or Socratic dialogue, is whenever two or more people share their opinions, by claiming what the truth is, until the interlocutor refutes it. But most of the times, there are always at least a couple of aspects they agree on. So even if they mostly disagree at the end of the debate, they have had a fruitful and constructive debate.

I want to suggest some tips.

1) Be nice and use simple language. If your exclusive aim is to impress the interlocutor with your vocabulary and rhetorical skills, and not listening to what the other party has to say, well, that's not a very good start. Try to use shorter sentences and to not dance around concepts If necessary, be blunt about concepts, remaining respectful to your interlocutor.

2) Answer the interlocutor's questions: if you want the interlocutor to answer your questions, answer their questions as well. Mutual respect is about mutual understanding and trust. One question, one answer. One topic at time. Without gish galloping, that is what makes the debate a monologue. And what is to avoid the most is to gaslight your interlocutor, that is expecting the other to answer your question, but not answering theirs. Be disposed to listen, and be patient.

3) Acknowledge. Whenever you realize that you partly agree with what the interlocutor said, do acknowledge that. That may be a start to find an agreement and to find the truth together, through the Socratic method.

4) Never do sealioning: Sealioning is whenever the interlocutor restlessly asks for evidence, because they are absolutely certain of their own truth and want to avoid the debate at any cost. So the only way to do that is to ask for more and more evidence. More locks on the door. In order to avoid equal confrontation.

5) Try to understand the interlocutor's perspective. The interlocutor's mindset is the result of their education, life story, religion, values. Try to see the world the way they see it. And then, use the same terms they use, when possible.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do add your tips.
This is a debate, so you can debate about mine.
I love self-criticism, because I love confrontation.

 

[Heyo]

1) Be nice and use simple language.

"3) Acknowledge." - I agree with almost everything, only critique is to the above, it should be:

1) Be nice and use appropriate language.

In a scientific debate, it is OK and expected to use termini technici. In fact, dumbing one's speech down could be seen as condescending.

Possible additions:

0) Enter a debate with the intention to find the truth.

5.1) Steelman your interlocutors arguments.
(That is a technique to achieve understanding. If you can repeat an argument in your words and the interlocutor agrees, understanding is most probable.)

 

[Estro Felino]

1) Be nice and use appropriate language.

In a scientific debate, it is OK and expected to use termini tecnici. In fact, dumbing one's speech down could be seen as condescending.

Surely. I meant that one concept can be expressed in a simple way without long redundant sentences. It was not about proper terminology. So I agree, if you meant the use of technical terms.

Possible additions:

0) Enter a debate with the intention to find the truth.

Always. The debate is supposed to be fruitful, because it is supposed to produce something new. It's not about winning or losing.
Do you know how many times I have acknowledged I was wrong?

5.1) Steelman your interlocutors arguments.
(That is a technique to achieve understanding. If you can repeat an argument in your words and the interlocutor agrees, understanding is most probable.)

I perfectly agree.

 

[Ella S.]

Never do sealioning: Sealioning is whenever the interlocutor restlessly asks for evidence, because they are absolutely certain of their own truth and want to avoid the debate at any cost. So the only way to do that is to ask for more and more evidence. More locks on the door. In order to avoid equal confrontation.

I'm not sure that I know what this refers to. I don't mind when people ask me for evidence in a debate, and I should hope that they expect to be asked to provide evidence to back up their claims, too. Could you give a hypothetical dialogue where asking for evidence becomes sealioning? Perhaps about a non-controversial topic such as whether the moon is made out of cheese or whether the earth is flat.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure that I know what this refers to. I don't mind when people ask me for evidence in a debate, and I should hope that they expect to be asked to provide evidence to back up their claims, too. Could you give a hypothetical dialogue where asking for evidence becomes sealioning? Perhaps about a non-controversial topic such as whether the moon is made out of cheese or whether the earth is flat.

I didn't invent the term: Sealioning - Wikipedia

It's when someone avoids answering your questions but expects you to back your claims with online links, even if it deals with simple opinions, so it doesn't deal with claims.
Opinions are different than claims.
The interlocutor can try to refute your opinion, without asking for evidence.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure that I know what this refers to. I don't mind when people ask me for evidence in a debate, and I should hope that they expect to be asked to provide evidence to back up their claims, too. Could you give a hypothetical dialogue where asking for evidence becomes sealioning? Perhaps about a non-controversial topic such as whether the moon is made out of cheese or whether the earth is flat.

For example, in court, there can be sealioning as well.
The prosecutor provides with the evidence of a recording where the defendant's voice is clearly audible, and the defense replies that there's no evidence that that is their client's real voice (when it's evident to human ears), and asks for more evidence.
Something like that.

 

[Ella S.]

I didn't invent the term: Sealioning - Wikipedia

It's when someone avoids answering your questions but expects you to back your claims with online links, even if it deals with simple opinions, so it doesn't deal with claims.
Opinions are different than claims.
The interlocutor can try to refute your opinion, without asking for evidence.

For example, in court, there can be sealioning as well.
The prosecutor provides with the evidence of a recording where the defendant's voice is clearly audible, and the defense replies that there's no evidence that that is their client's real voice (when it's evident to human ears), and asks for more evidence.
Something like that.

Thank you, I see now. I was unfamiliar with this term and appreciate the knowledge.

 

[Estro Felino]

Thank you, I see now. I was unfamiliar with this term and appreciate the knowledge.

You're welcome.

 

[Ella S.]

0) Enter a debate with the intention to find the truth.

To elaborate on this, I would add (for the sake of clarity) that we should always approach debates as a potential opportunity to learn. At the beginning of the debate, we should recognize that we do not yet know which of us is correct in our understanding, and we should argue from a place of epistemic humility.

Someone has to be wrong without realizing it; debate is meant to help reveal who that is. There's no point in debating if you're completely certain that you're right, because all that does is get in the way of open discourse.

You must be genuinely open to having your mind changed on a subject by superior logic and data from the opposition, and you have to be comfortable with being shown to be wrong. I get it, nobody likes being wrong, but we're all wrong about some things. We should care more about learning and being right than the potential embarrassment of being shown that we're wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not sure that I know what this refers to. I don't mind when people ask me for evidence in a debate, and I should hope that they expect to be asked to provide evidence to back up their claims, too. Could you give a hypothetical dialogue where asking for evidence becomes sealioning? Perhaps about a non-controversial topic such as whether the moon is made out of cheese or whether the earth is flat.

If it's consistent, it's clearly a tactic to try to stonewall a topic or a feint to discredit an opponent because their source material dosent coincide with that person's view, so they just keep repeating the demands for evidence or source.

 

[Ella S.]

I think I would also add that debate is about argument and counter-argument. Whoever initiates the debate holds the burden of proof, and they should attempt to meet that burden of proof at the very beginning of the debate before the interlocutor even responds.

The interlocutor has to attack the premises of an argument by providing an unfriendly principle, which is another conclusion that could be drawn from the premises/evidence laid out in an argument; a defeater of principles, which directly proves a statement that contradicts one of the premises; or a restriction of the principles, which points out the limitations that weaken the strength of the premises, such as by pointing out that we cannot say "All swans are white" but instead say that "All observed swans from where we are in Europe are white," which was the case before Europeans discovered black swans in Asia.

If you begin a debate, you have the burden of proof and you cannot shift it to your interlocutor. An interlocutor only takes on the burden of proof when they make a positive case for a contradictory position, not when they attack your premises.

This also means that, as soon as one party shifts the topic of debate to something else, they have technically forfeited the debate unless that topic is directly related to supporting or dismissing one of the premises within the argument that started the debate.

 

[PureX]

Debate is not possible in most instances these days because the participants are not living in the same reality. Each is recognizing and understanding reality according to their own meta-truth paradigm. Such that even the words they use are being understood and defined through the lens of that paradigm. To the point that communication becomes impossible.

In Socrates' time and up until a few hundred years ago all humans lived in the same reality and understood it in more or less the same way. And so could debate aspects of it successfully. But as the concept and truth of relativism has entered the collective consciousness of humanity, beginning in the Renaisanse, humans have been developing concepts of reality based on their own particular perspectives and experiences. And as these have become more rigorous, they have become more and more self-relevant. They have become worlds unto themselves. And those living in them have become trapped in them by their own convictions.

Now days one has to hold their ego in check, and work hard at stepping outside of their own meta-idea of truth and reality to even try to understand someone else's. And no useful debate can take place unless that's possible. And for most people, this is just not possible. They remain closed up in a world of their own truth, possibilities and impossibilities, and even language.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think I would also add that debate is about argument and counter-argument. Whoever initiates the debate holds the burden of proof, and they should attempt to meet that burden of proof at the very beginning of the debate before the interlocutor even responds.

The interlocutor has to attack the premises of an argument by providing an unfriendly principle, which is another conclusion that could be drawn from the premises/evidence laid out in an argument; a defeater of principles, which directly proves a statement that contradicts one of the premises; or a restriction of the principles, which points out the limitations that weaken the strength of the premises, such as by pointing out that we cannot say "All swans are white" but instead say that "All observed swans from where we are in Europe are white," which was the case before Europeans discovered black swans in Asia.

If you begin a debate, you have the burden of proof and you cannot shift it to your interlocutor. An interlocutor only takes on the burden of proof when they make a positive case for a contradictory position, not when they attack your premises.

This also means that, as soon as one party shifts the topic of debate to something else, they have technically forfeited the debate unless that topic is directly related to supporting or dismissing one of the premises within the argument that started the debate.

That's true. As I said, there's difference between opinion and claim.

1) An opinion is often preceded by expression like "I guess", "I believe", "I think", etc...
2) A claim is to affirm that something is the absolute truth or the irrefutable truth.

So there's a huge difference between
1) I guess all swans in Europe are white and
2) The scientific truth is that all swans in Europe are white.

in the first sentence the interlocutor says that something is very likely, but not the absolute truth.

There are so many shades between true and untrue. It's not all either black or white. Which are the degrees of certainty:

1) impossible/untrue
2) improbable
3) unlikely
4) likely
5) possible
6) probable
7) certain
8) sure
9) true

 

[Estro Felino]

Another tip
:

6) Always correct the interlocutor. Always say why the interlocutor is wrong. Or what they are wrong about. That is, if you think the interlocutor is wrong, don't just tell them "You're wrong, I am right, period". Tell them the alternative response. Simple example to simplify the concept. You say that two plus two equals four and the interlocutor tells you that you are wrong, but they won't tell you the right answer.

 

[Estro Felino]

Debate is not possible in most instances these days because the participants are not living in the same reality. Each is recognizing and understanding reality according to their own meta-truth paradigm. Such that even the words they use are being understood and defined through the lens of that paradigm. To the point that communication becomes impossible.

In Socrates' time and up until a few hundred years ago all humans lived in the same reality and understood it in more or less the same way. And so could debate aspects of it successfully. But as the concept and truth of relativism has entered the collective consciousness of humanity, beginning in the Renaisanse, humans have been developing concepts of reality based on their own particular perspectives and experiences. And as these have become more rigorous, they have become more and more self-relevant. They have become worlds unto themselves. And those living in them have become trapped in them by their own convictions.

Now days one has to hold their ego in check, and work hard at stepping outside of their own meta-idea of truth and reality to even try to understand someone else's. And no useful debate can take place unless that's possible. And for most people, this is just not possible. They remain closed up in a world of their own truth, possibilities and impossibilities, and even language.

Very interesting analysis.
But I have actually attended successful debates when people acknowledged that the debate was fruitful and both interlocutors learned something new. So I am more optimistic.

It's true that people are very possessive, when it deals with keeping their own certainties.

 

[Ella S.]

That's true. As I said, there's difference between opinion and claim.

1) An opinion is often preceded by expression like "I guess", "I believe", "I think", etc...
2) A claim is to affirm that something is the absolute truth or the irrefutable truth.

So there's a huge difference between
1) I guess all swans in Europe are white and
2) The scientific truth is that all swans in Europe are white.

in the first sentence the interlocutor says that something is very likely, but not the absolute truth.

There are so many shades between true and untrue. It's not all either black or white. Which are the degrees of certainty:

1) impossible/untrue
2) improbable
3) unlikely
4) likely
5) possible
6) probable
7) certain
8) sure
9) true

These are the degrees that I use:

1. Metaphysically Impossible; necessarily false due to violating the laws of logic.
2. Nomologically Impossible; necessarily false due to violating the natural laws, which we might not have an accurate understanding of.
3. Implausible; no more than 10% likely to be true
4. Unlikely; holding a lower likelihood than other, contradictory possible claims
5. Plausible/Possible; sort of the equivalent of an agnostic position
6. Likely; holding the highest likelihood out of all of the relevant possible claims
7. Almost Certain; no less than 90% likely to be true
8. Necessarily True; true by deductive proof, such as an argument by definition, which is used in linguistics, computer science, mathematics, etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

These are the degrees that I use:

1. Metaphysically Impossible; necessarily false due to violating the laws of logic.
2. Nomologically Impossible; necessarily false due to violating the natural laws, which we might not have an accurate understanding of.
3. Implausible; no more than 10% likely to be true
4. Unlikely; holding a lower likelihood than other, contradictory possible claims
5. Plausible/Possible; sort of the equivalent of an agnostic position
6. Likely; holding the highest likelihood out of all of the relevant possible claims
7. Almost Certain; no less than 90% likely to be true
8. Necessarily True; true by deductive proof, such as an argument by definition, which is used in linguistics, computer science, mathematics, etc.

That was a very useful list, Thanks.

 

[PureX]

Very interesting analysis.
But I have actually attended successful debates when people acknowledged that the debate was fruitful and both interlocutors learned something new. So I am more optimistic.

It's true that people are very possessive, when it deals with keeping their own certainties.

And who among us doesn't love our sense of certainty? Who is willing to set it aside only to learn how it may have been wrong?

Not many.

I don't think it's the mechanics of debate that is the problem. It's the lack of willingness to even see another side.

 

[Estro Felino]

And who among us doesn't love our sense of certainty? Who is willing to set it aside only to learn how it may have been wrong?

Me.
I have done it multiple times, especially when it dealt with cold cases.
I was convinced a person had committed suicide, and yet now I support the search for the truth, because I think this person has been murdered. And I am open to debate, in that case, but the other party is unwilling to even discuss.