Tips for a nice debate

[Revoltingest]

I am not understanding anything, honestly.

Posters should consider if a question
they want to pose will enhance or
detract from discussion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Posters should consider if a question
they want to pose will enhance or
detract from discussion.

Debate threads are made up of opinions, or claims. Not necessarily of questions.

Debate deals with making a statement and the interlocutor can decide to refute it with a point, an anecdote, another claim...

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In general, avoid logical fallacies.

 

[Estro Felino]

In general, avoid logical fallacies.

Interesting.

If I say that something is probable, it doesn't mean that it's the historical or the scientific truth.
There is a big difference between claim and opinion.
An opinion is based upon your own sensitivity and experience, and it's based on probability.

So, I can say: "It's very probable that this fact occurred". It's not a logical fallacy.
I am not saying that that fact did occur.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Interesting, but in y language there's no such a thing as logical fallacy.

Of course there still are. Regardless of language, one is still entirely subject to attacking the person, not the argument or stance (ad hominem), pointing to an "authority" as though that settles the matter (appeal to authority), argue against a constructed stance not held by the opponent (straw-man argument), introduce elements that are completely unrelated to try to distract from the topic (red herring), or a myriad of other informal and formal fallacies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course there still are. Regardless of language, one is still entirely subject to attacking the person, not the argument or stance (ad hominem), pointing to an "authority" as though that settles the matter (appeal to authority), argue against a constructed stance not held by the opponent (straw-man argument), introduce elements that are completely unrelated to try to distract from the topic (red herring), or a myriad of other informal and formal fallacies.

Honestly, I have never understood what a straw-man argument is, because there's no such a concept in my language. Could you give me an example?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Honestly, I have never understood what a straw-man argument is, because there's no such a concept in my language. Could you give me an example?

Of course. A Strawman Argument is misrepresenting an opponent's argument, to then refute this weaker version of their argument and "win". For example, say that Alice says "Marijuana should be made legal." Tim retorts with "Oh, so you support criminals and degenerates?" Tim's reply is a strawman argument, in that nowhere did Alice voice support for criminals.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course. A Strawman Argument is misrepresenting an opponent's argument, to then refute this weaker version of their argument and "win". For example, say that Alice says "Marijuana should be made legal." Tim retorts with "Oh, so you support criminals and degenerates?" Tim's reply is a strawman argument, in that nowhere did Alice voice support for criminals.

Thank you so much.
So a misrepresentation of the interlocutor's claim. A sort of gaslighting, actually.

They can be often due to misunderstandings because of language barriers, or communication problems. I always assume people are in good faith.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

These are good. I would add charitable listening. Many times people misspeak, are not clear or it didn't come out the way they intended. Let people clarify their stance. Assuming the worst about someone is not a great debate tactic.

 

[Estro Felino]

These are good. I would add charitable listening. Many times people misspeak, are not clear or it didn't come out the way they intended. Let people clarify their stance. Assuming the worst about someone is not a great debate tactic.

Patience is a must in a debate. Without being hasty. Yes, I agree.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Thank you so much.
So a misrepresentation of the interlocutor's claim. A sort of gaslighting, actually.

Not sure why you changed the example of Ukraine and Russia; that is 100% an example of a Strawman argument, yes. Especially if the person doubles down on their opponents "support" of the war from one side.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not sure why you changed the example of Ukraine and Russia; that is 100% an example of a Strawman argument, yes. Especially if the person doubles down on their opponents "support" of the war from one side.

Your example was already clear, thank you.

Honestly I think that's what debate is for: making themselves clear. So you need to be patient, if you want to engage in a debate, and wait for clarifications.
Because it often deals with misunderstandings, actually. I am often misunderstood and I often misunderstand, if I am too hasty.

 

[Heyo]

At least trying to answer. Its better than waving them off

Someone who asks such a question isn't asking for a debate, they are asking for a lecture.

 

[Ella S.]

The most reoccurring oxymoronic question I see being asked is for scientific evidence for a god

I don't understand how this is oxymoronic. Do you mean because God is frequently defined in unfalsifiable ways?

 

[We Never Know]

I don't understand how this is oxymoronic. Do you mean because God is frequently defined in unfalsifiable ways?

Does science research or study a god?

 

[Heyo]

Does science research or study a god?

Only the real ones.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

I would add that it is useful to know what a debate is, before entering one, or trying to start one.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would add that it is useful to know what a debate is, before entering one, or trying to start one.

Well...our debates on TV...look all like that...
That's definitely a debate...

 

[Ella S.]

Does science research or study a god?

Science researches and studies all claims about the objective facts of reality. Whether a god exists or not would, therefore, fall under the purview of scientific investigation, imo. I don't know why they would be exempt. Science already studies ghosts, fairies, cryptids, curses, psychic powers, and so on (and found them to be bunk.) Why does God get a special pass?

 

[Heyo]

Science researches and studies all claims about the objective facts of reality. Whether a god exists or not would, therefore, fall under the purview of scientific investigation, imo. I don't know why they would be exempt. Science already studies ghosts, fairies, cryptids, curses, psychic powers, and so on (and found them to be bunk.) Why does God get a special pass?

Because it hasn't been proposed to be an objective fact of reality.