"Winning a Debate": What Does It Mean to You?

[Debater Slayer]

When I think of what "winning a debate" means in pretty much any context outside of formal, moderated debates, I tend to think of two things:

• Learning something new or being shown evidence and sound reasoning that contradict one of my beliefs, thereby allowing me to change or revise it per the evidence or offered logic. If I gain this from a debate, I have won quite a bit.

• Showing someone new evidence and seeing them or someone else in the debate acknowledge having learned something new or having been exposed to sound reasoning that contradicts one of their beliefs.

In neither case do I believe winning a debate entails "proving" someone wrong or getting cheers and approval from an audience. In my opinion, fixating on those aspects of a debate tends to be more about recreation and ego than learning, exchanging perspectives, or challenging one's own beliefs by putting them to the test in a debate.

What about you? What do you think "winning a debate" means?

 

[Left Coast]

When I think of what "winning a debate" means in pretty much any context outside of formal, moderated debates, I tend to think of two things:

• Learning something new or being shown evidence and sound reasoning that contradict one of my beliefs, thereby allowing me to change or revise it per the evidence or offered logic.
• Showing someone new evidence and seeing them or someone else in the debate acknowledge having learned something new or having been exposed to sound reasoning that contradicts one of their beliefs.

In neither case do I believe winning a debate entails "proving" someone wrong or getting cheers and approval from an audience. In my opinion, fixating on those aspects of a debate tends to be more about recreation and ego than learning, exchanging perspectives, or challenging one's own beliefs by putting them to the test in a debate.

What about you? What do you think "winning a debate" means?

In broad strokes I think of "winning" a debate as making better arguments than an opposing viewpoint. This means making arguments that are stronger in terms of evidence and are logically sound (or revealing weaknesses in the position of one's interlocuter).

That's more a definition for formal debate, though.

In informal settings, I think the goal is less about winning and losing (though sometimes ego gets in the way there) and more about coming to mutual understanding of each other's perspectives.

 

[Revoltingest]

The opposition submits & supplicates.

Needless to say, I never win a debate.
But I never expect to.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would say that I have won in quite a few debates with @Rival, @Augustus, @Jayhawker Soule, @exchemist, @It Aint Necessarily So, and @lewisnotmiller, among many other members. This is because I have consistently found myself coming out of debates with them with new information, further insight into other perspectives, or evidence and logic that convinced me that I should revise or change one of my beliefs.

A bystander who didn't know any of us might think of that as "losing" a debate, of course, but I would find that to be an extremely limited and inaccurate view. In my opinion, having the benefit of testing one's beliefs in good-faith conversations is possibly the most valuable aspect of a debate.

 

[Rival]

I would say that I have won in quite a few debates with @Rival, @Augustus, @Jayhawker Soule, @exchemist, @It Aint Necessarily So, and @lewisnotmiller, among many other members. This is because I have consistently found myself coming out of debates with them with new information, further insight into other perspectives, or evidence and logic that convinced me that I should revise or change one of my beliefs.

A bystander who didn't know any of us might think of that as "losing" a debate, of course, but I would find that to be an extremely limited and inaccurate view. In my opinion, having the benefit of testing one's beliefs in good-faith conversations is possibly the most valuable aspect of a debate.

Same. I have often won debates with @Vouthon and others by changing my mind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In broad strokes I think of "winning" a debate as making better arguments than an opposing viewpoint. This means making arguments that are stronger in terms of evidence and are logically sound (or revealing weaknesses in the position of one's interlocuter).

That's more a definition for formal debate, though.

In informal settings, I think the goal is less about winning and losing (though sometimes ego gets in the way there) and more about coming to mutual understanding of each other's perspectives.

One of the main problems with determining the "winner" of a debate is, in my opinion, the fact that people will never agree on what constitutes reliable evidence or sound logic. This is especially salient in debates involving conspiracy theorists against experts or scholars in various fields, or a debate between a young-Earth creationist arguing from a theological perspective and a scientist arguing from a scientific standpoint.

You and I will almost surely agree that the scholars, experts, and scientists have the evidence and logic on their side, but then a part of the audience will say the same about the debate opponents of our favored side. Facts don't care about individual opinions, of course, but the idea of "winning" seems subjective to begin with and related to perception more than facts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Same. I have often won debates with @Vouthon and others by changing my mind.

I think a lot of people underestimate just how liberating it is not to feel bound to any specific beliefs and to be open to revising them when presented with new evidence and ideas.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What about you? What do you think "winning a debate" means?

Winning a debate, in my experience, has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It's all about who is better at making an argument.

I've heard of debaters that would make arguments for opinions other than their own just for practice.

A stand-up comic, whose name escapes me received a formal education in debating, because his father who was a professional debater mandated it. He said his father told him something to the effect, if you can't make an argument for the opposing opinion, you have no business debating the subject.

 

[Left Coast]

One of the main problems with determining the "winner" of a debate is, in my opinion, the fact that people will never agree on what constitutes reliable evidence or sound logic. This is especially salient in debates involving conspiracy theorists against experts or scholars in various fields, or a debate between a young-Earth creationist arguing from a theological perspective and a scientist arguing from a scientific standpoint.

You and I will almost surely agree that the scholars, experts, and scientists have the evidence and logic on their side, but then a part of the audience will say the same about the debate opponents of our favored side. Facts don't care about individual opinions, of course, but the idea of "winning" seems subjective to begin with and related to perception more than facts.

If you're dealing with unreasonable or delusional people, then yes, debate itself is a non-starter.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Winning a debate, in my experience, has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It's all about who is better and making an argument.

I've heard of debaters that would make arguments for opinions other than their own just for practice.

A stand-up comic, whose name escapes me received a formal education in debating because his father who was a professional debater mandated it. He said his father told him something to the effect, if you can't make an argument from the opposing opinion, you have no business debating the subject.

This is one of the reasons I don't put much stock into the idea of "winning" a debate. A lot of it seems to me based on appearance and flashiness rather than the substance and facts in the arguments. Someone could make unethical or unevidenced beliefs look appealing purely because of things like articulation, humor, calmness, etc., even though the substance is still dubious.

I think being able to understand how and why others have the beliefs that they do even when strongly disagreeing is a crucial aspect of a healthy worldview. For example, the idea that everyone would follow a specific religion if they were "genuine" or that everyone would be an atheist if they were "rational" doesn't account for the vast complexity and diversity of human psychology and thought, in my opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When I think of what "winning a debate" means in pretty much any context outside of formal, moderated debates, I tend to think of two things:

• Learning something new or being shown evidence and sound reasoning that contradict one of my beliefs, thereby allowing me to change or revise it per the evidence or offered logic. If I gain this from a debate, I have won quite a bit.
• Showing someone new evidence and seeing them or someone else in the debate acknowledge having learned something new or having been exposed to sound reasoning that contradicts one of their beliefs.

In neither case do I believe winning a debate entails "proving" someone wrong or getting cheers and approval from an audience. In my opinion, fixating on those aspects of a debate tends to be more about recreation and ego than learning, exchanging perspectives, or challenging one's own beliefs by putting them to the test in a debate.

What about you? What do you think "winning a debate" means?

Not having to initally resort to personal attacks and commentary. I let my opponent do that first.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not having to initally resort to personal attacks and commentary. I let my opponent do that first.

Someone could be entirely wrong as far as the facts go and still avoid personal attacks, though. This dovetails with my earlier point that sometimes "winning" a debate can be about style rather than substance.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Someone could be entirely wrong as far as the facts go and still avoid personal attacks, though. This dovetails with my earlier point that sometimes "winning" a debate can be about style rather than substance.

It begs the question if some debates are better served with experts as opposed to amateurs. A bit like peer review.

There's no doubt there's a difference with formal debate, as opposed to the informal ones like those here, although I think its a healthy endeavor to debate as a way to keep a person sharp and practiced mentally. Win or lose.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've never won a debate, so I wouldn't know. But to add to Salix's point, often debate clubs don't even know which side they are to debate until 5 minutes before the actual debate. So it's far more about how you say it, and the methods you use. Along the same vein, many political speech writers don't actually agree with the points the politician makes in the speech. I had a colleague who had a cushy little side job writing speeches for a right wing party, but he himself was la leftie. He could write great speeches.

Here on RF, I've yet to read what I thought was a decent debate.

 

[Left Coast]

Winning a debate, in my experience, has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It's all about who is better at making an argument.

I've heard of debaters that would make arguments for opinions other than their own just for practice.

A stand-up comic, whose name escapes me received a formal education in debating, because his father who was a professional debater mandated it. He said his father told him something to the effect, if you can't make an argument for the opposing opinion, you have no business debating the subject.

I think quite a few of us could use similar practice making arguments that oppose our own view.

In my high school government class, we had to do a formal debate against other classmates and we chose topics (and which side of the topic we were on) out of a hat. So you might get a perspective you agree with, you might not. But either way, you had to make an argument for it in front of the class and answer objections from your opponents. It was one of the best exercises I remember doing in school as a teen.

 

[Left Coast]

I've never won a debate, so I wouldn't know.

I highly doubt that!

 

[Stevicus]

What about you? What do you think "winning a debate" means?

It means fame, glory, prizes, recognition. People stop me on the street and congratulate me on the great points I made in debates I've had with @Revoltingest. Winning these debates on the internet certainly has many benefits and perks.

 

[Revoltingest]

It means fame, glory, prizes, recognition. People stop me on the street and congratulate me on the great points I made in debates I've had with @Revoltingest. Winning these debates on the internet certainly has many benefits and perks.

Oh, if only your points related
to the subjects under discussion.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, if only your points related
to the subjects under discussion.

You only say that when I have you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

You only say that when I have you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason.

"Reason" is what you call a straw man?