• 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!

Tips for a nice debate

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi guys :) how are you? :heartpulse:
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.

I think a lot of it would depend on the goal of the individuals participating in a debate. Are they trying to learn something? Are they trying to reach the truth? Do they want to discuss and share their views with a wider audience? Is debate merely a form of entertainment and recreation for some people? Do they have some sort of political agenda they're trying to advance?

Most of the time, whenever I see someone post a negative or hostile response (without actually addressing any specific points of discussion), regardless of the content or how clever someone thinks they're being, I generally reduce it down to one of two possible statements. The person is either saying "I disagree with you" or "I don't like what you're saying." Of course, one might try following your fifth point here and try to understand where the other person is coming from.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I think a lot of it would depend on the goal of the individuals participating in a debate. Are they trying to learn something? Are they trying to reach the truth? Do they want to discuss and share their views with a wider audience? Is debate merely a form of entertainment and recreation for some people? Do they have some sort of political agenda they're trying to advance?

Most of the time, whenever I see someone post a negative or hostile response (without actually addressing any specific points of discussion), regardless of the content or how clever someone thinks they're being, I generally reduce it down to one of two possible statements. The person is either saying "I disagree with you" or "I don't like what you're saying." Of course, one might try following your fifth point here and try to understand where the other person is coming from.

To me debate has multiple goals. First of all, to get more information as possible on a specific topic I am interested in.
There are also tremendous and ugly truths I hope to be wrong about. So I don't want to be right. Sometimes I wish I was wrong, I wish I could be refuted. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
About questions....
It's also important to not ask a question with
the belief that merely asking it makes a point.
It feels clever (eg, If evolution exists, why are
there still monkeys?), but it's merely annoying.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
About questions....
It's also important to not ask a question with
the belief that merely asking it makes a point.
It feels clever (eg, If evolution exists, why are
there still monkeys?), but it's merely annoying.

That kind of question does have an answer:
because today monkeys descend from a common ancestor that went extinct. :)

There's always the chance to answer, and to engage in a civil, nice debate.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That kind of question does have an answer:
because today monkeys descend from a common ancestor that went extinct. :)

There's always the chance to answer, and to engage in a civil, nice debate.
The question is often posed rhetorically.
But the criticism remains, ie, ask questions
that enhance discussion, not detract from it.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The question is often posed rhetorically.
But the criticism remains, ie, ask questions that enhance discussion, not detract from it.

An example of question that enhances discussion?

That question about monkeys does enhance it, I think.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The most reoccurring oxymoronic question I see being asked is for scientific evidence for a god

This is a very interesting and important statement, philosophically speaking.
Because juridically, you cannot demonstrate God's existence in court, so God is non-existing, juridically speaking.
Or that's what my fellow jurists say.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To me debate has multiple goals. First of all, to get more information as possible on a specific topic I am interested in.
There are also tremendous and ugly truths I hope to be wrong about. So I don't want to be right. Sometimes I wish I was wrong, I wish I could be refuted. :)

I've found that it's helpful when it comes to issues I may not be entirely familiar with. Every election, whenever there are propositions on the ballot, they usually publish the arguments "for" or "against" which are submitted by various lobby groups, associations, and individuals. It's sometimes helpful to see both sides of an argument to get an idea of what it's really about and where both sides are coming from.

A lot of debates are more about conflicting values and differences of opinion which can't necessarily be resolved through evidence or fact-based arguments. Whether it's a great beer because it "tastes great" or it's "less filling" is kind of a pointless thing to argue about. In any case, how is someone to prove that one side is correct and the other is incorrect?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I've found that it's helpful when it comes to issues I may not be entirely familiar with. Every election, whenever there are propositions on the ballot, they usually publish the arguments "for" or "against" which are submitted by various lobby groups, associations, and individuals. It's sometimes helpful to see both sides of an argument to get an idea of what it's really about and where both sides are coming from.

A lot of debates are more about conflicting values and differences of opinion which can't necessarily be resolved through evidence or fact-based arguments. Whether it's a great beer because it "tastes great" or it's "less filling" is kind of a pointless thing to argue about. In any case, how is someone to prove that one side is correct and the other is incorrect?

Politicians are obsessed with winning, no matter the cost. That's a fact.

Debate has different goals: in an university or in TV show, it's not really about winning or losing.

If I engage in a debate about JFK, I don't care about winning, honestly. The truth about who killed him doesn't affect my life. It's not something vital, to be right.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
@Revoltingest
Do you know who I'd love to debate with? Ann Coulter.
Of course I tend to disagree on several topics with her, but she is the kind of person that 1) answers all your questions 2) is outspoken and blunt, so is an open book to you 3) she uses short sentences.

 
Top