What Makes A Good Debater?

[Lightkeeper]

What are some of the rules of good debate? I can tell you things I think make a bad debater:

put downs
sarcasm
name calling
disrespect for someone elses beliefs
Thinking this is a shooting gallery and we are all ducks
Forcing your opinion on others

What do you think?

 

[Alaric]

IMO, the best rule is the principle that you should seek to understand the other person's point of view before you make your own points. You can't expect to generate a good debate if you try to counter someone's views with your own views, in some vain hope that they'll accept them because they sound better; you've got to base your arguments on what has been said before. E.g. refuting a poetic description of heaven by conjuring up an even more poetic description of reincarnation is not a debate.

It's also crucial that people realise that respect for people's opinions does not mean that people have to respect your right to hold them; only that it's important to realise that people hold certain views for a myriad of different reasons that you don't know about, and that people have every right to state them. E.g. if someone said that they believed that all heathens should be hunted down and killed, you can be outraged at the belief but not outraged by the fact that he said it, and give him some credit by assuming he has some good reasons for his beliefs. So, everyone should expect, and want, their views to be attacked. I certainly don't care about some belief you have if you aren't willing to put it to the test. This IS a shooting gallery for views; people should think of their worldviews as robots that they build up carefully and send them into the ring that is religiousforums.com, to be slaughtered by the house robots. The longer your view survives, the better it is! So if you think that your view is the absolute truth, i.e. indestructible, expect us to subject it to a full broadside. If you have a view that you need to believe in and can't risk it to be damaged, then you should probably get lost.

Lastly, you should of course never use ad hominem (i.e. personal) attacks - and never just dismiss an argument with something like 'that's just stupid.' You could, though, say 'that's just stupid - you forgot that...' or 'that's ridiculous, you just contradicted yourself three times in the same sentence.' Laziness is as bad as anything else for debating. On that note it's also helpful if you try and gauge how 'out there' your views are in comparason to others, and prepare your arguments accordingly. Don't just declare that you were abducted by aliens and expect people to respect that; acknowledge the fact that it sounds totally off the wall, and counter the :roll: before they begin.

Oh yeah, and if you want to be respected, don't use text-messaging abbreviations, and capitalize the goddamn first letter in your sentences!!!

 

[Lightkeeper]

I am having a problem reconciling having respect for a person's ideas and at the same time calling their ideas a shooting gallery. This is why I prefer dialoguing to debate. In dialoguing you ask questions and work hard at understanding the answers, you don't argue with the answers. You then answer their questions. If you consider a person's ideas a shooting gallery, you may not be in the mode to learn, you may be trigger happy. Also, you may be hearing an idea that you are not ready to hear or learn from yet. We learn something when we are ready to learn it. Staying open is the key.

 

[Alaric]

True - the goal should always be to learn, and to develop your ideas and understanding, not to win the argument; you just have to discuss in the way that brings out the best arguments. You use questions when you feel they have not told you the whole story, and challenge them with counter arguments when you want them to test their ideas against others. You should always want the person you are debating with to make the strongest possible case for their p.o.v. But you don't necessarily need to meet halfway - if someone else describes their view, you should try to see the consequences of what they are saying, and they should try to see your difficulties with it so that they can explain it in a way that you will understand, but they are the ones with the idea, while you were only just presented with it, so you'd expect them to have already thought about some of the possible problems with it, meaning they have to do more of the work.

 

[desi]

The key to debate is to make sure your argument is logically sound and present it in both a logical and emotive combination depending on your audience.

 

[Rex]

The key to debate is to make sure your argument is logically sound and present it in both a logical and emotive combination depending on your audience.

But some religions use neither logic nor rationality, I.E. Blind Faith.

But logical debate is a must. hehe

:lol:

 

[(Q)]

I think one or two here are master debaters.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think one or two here are master debaters.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Master Vigil]

HAHAHA!!!! If you are referring to me, I don't seem to do pretty well in debates do I? Only a maser vigil, not a master debater. I'm trying though, someday I will get better at it.

 

[(Q)]

Only a maser vigil, not a master debater. I'm trying though, someday I will get better at it.

On the other hand, you might succeed at it.

 

[Master Vigil]

Hopefully one day I will be able to succeed at debating. I am too emotional and thick headed. I try to be as humble as I can, it is hard for me I guess.

 

[(Q)]

Whoooooooooooooosh!

:angel:

 

[Master Vigil]

hahaha, is that like a gift of debateness that has been given to me? Am I a better debater now??

 

[Runt]

Hmm… good debaters generally stick to one premises rather than arguing multiple points at once (I'm guilty of failing right and left in this area), provide valid evidence or explanation to back up their premises, are willing to concede points to the opposition if the opposition makes a good point, (even if that point might potentially invalidate or undermine their own argument), possess the ability to make their argument as concise and precise as possible, and are able to stay on topic and avoid patronizing or outright insulting other debaters (even if they deserve it).

And, haha, the way I came up with the list? I thought of all the things I lack or need to work on while debating!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmm… good debaters generally stick to one premises rather than arguing multiple points at once (I'm guilty of failing right and left in this area), provide valid evidence or explanation to back up their premises, are willing to concede points to the opposition if the opposition makes a good point, (even if that point might potentially invalidate or undermine their own argument), possess the ability to make their argument as concise and precise as possible, and are able to stay on topic and avoid patronizing or outright insulting other debaters (even if they deserve it).

And, haha, the way I came up with the list? I thought of all the things I lack or need to work on while debating!

I completely disagree, Runt! I think you do all of those things well :goodjob:

 

[sillygeezer10]

I'm worse than bad in the debate stuff. I broke loads of rule in the debate
I tend be emotional that's why I avoid debating often. I use sarsacm sometime :lol: :lol: I prefer a good laugh to a debate anyway. There's only one kind of debate I'm good at, political. I'm only coming here to expand my reporitire. Good day to all bad debaters. Long live them!

 

[mrscardero]

I think one or two here are master debaters.

I was reading through
the old threads and came across this one.

 

[SoulTYPE]

Someone with backbone, great knowledge, prepared to argue any situation..and all does it with respect for the other side. One who is willing to take on all arguments..

I almost described Deut32 ALMOST

No this isn't an attack on him.

 

[cardero]

What Makes A Good Debater?

Someone who is willing to follow the debate all the way to it's logical/illogical conclusion.

 

[michel]

A very good friend and I (...those were such happy days...) at college found that the best way to learn to debate is to 'swap sides';ie if you, Lightkeeper, and I disagreed on a particular point, I would argue as if I was you, and you would argue my 'corner'; apart from being a fun excercise, it is amazing how you can suddenly have insight into both opinions.
Has anyone else ever tried this?