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

[Heyo]

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?

Debates are no competition. (Well, they should not be.) A debate is the mutual effort of two or more people to further knowledge. The debate was successful when at least one person has learned something from it.

 

[Stevicus]

"Reason" is what you call a straw man?

No, I call a straw man a scarecrow.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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?

I don’t think in terms of winning or losing debates. Then again I haven’t truly debated in ages

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Imo winning a debate isn't something that happens on forums like these. It's something that happens in formal, moderated debates with structure, rules and standards of practice.

Here 'winning a debate' is aboit as meaningful as winning a game of Calvinball.

 

[icehorse]

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.

One of the most important computer programmers ever is Alan Kay. He's also capable of some pretty pithy perspectives on life. He has a wonderful sort of meta-perspective: "The correct perspective is worth 80 IQ points." For instance, we've probably all had the experience of grappling with a hard problem. Then someone comes along and says: "oh, think of it this way". And as soon as you think of it from that different perspective, the seemingly intractable problem becomes easy.

So, long story short, I'm always on the lookout for those "80 IQ point perspectives".

 

[Stevicus]

Debates are no competition. (Well, they should not be.) A debate is the mutual effort of two or more people to further knowledge. The debate was successful when at least one person has learned something from it.

Well, in competitive debates, there's usually some sort of moderator or judge - someone who is impartial and grading/scoring based upon an agreed format. Debating is a skill where, one can be better skilled than one's opponent, yet still be considered on the "wrong" side. Yet, the true test is in having the ability and breadth of knowledge to argue both sides with equal skill.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

I think that unless you have official jury or audience voting to determine a winner of a debate, winning a debate is making your opponent publicly admit they were wrong and back down from their original claims.

People rarely change their views during debates, usually it's going back and forth for multiple pages. I draw a line between a discussion (when participants present their opinions, give arguments in favor of their positions and analyze the counterarguments) and a debate, which often resembles a fight and can quickly get personal. And I have to be emotionally invested in the topic to participate in the latter either online or in my daily life. Unfortunately, as I'm getting older, I grow increasingly apathetic even with politics.

I sometimes change my views but it's more due to either gaining some experience or gathering more information on the topic. On the other hand, there are many issues I don't have an opinion on.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the most important computer programmers ever is Alan Kay. He's also capable of some pretty pithy perspectives on life. He has a wonderful sort of meta-perspective: "The correct perspective is worth 80 IQ points." For instance, we've probably all had the experience of grappling with a hard problem. Then someone comes along and says: "oh, think of it this way". And as soon as you think of it from that different perspective, the seemingly intractable problem becomes easy.

So, long story short, I'm always on the lookout for those "80 IQ point perspectives".

I'll need 10 more points...at least.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm suspicious of debates in both religion and politics, given that certitude is so common in either belief system. And when one can't even agree as to the basics - acceptance of fairly fundamental scientific evidence, for example - then there seems not much point in debating. Hence why I tend to steer clear of these and stick to discussions - knowing that very few will change any beliefs they have (like me too) and knowing that this isn't their aim generally. I'm not sure what value debates do have in these fields of knowledge.

 

[Heyo]

Well, in competitive debates, there's usually some sort of moderator or judge - someone who is impartial and grading/scoring based upon an agreed format. Debating is a skill where, one can be better skilled than one's opponent, yet still be considered on the "wrong" side. Yet, the true test is in having the ability and breadth of knowledge to argue both sides with equal skill.

I know this kind of exchange and I accept that it is usually called "debate" but I think it's more precisely explained by the moniker "rhetorical competition". It is a skill set useful for lawyers, politicians and apologists who have to argue the case of their clients/donors. It uses "rhetorical devices" which would be called out as logical fallacies in a philosophical debate. The "winner" is the one who most creatively lies for their cause.

 

[vulcanlogician]

"Winning a debate" seems like a waste of time.

"Having a debate" on the other hand seems like a very worthwhile activity.

During a debate, you subject your own views to scrutiny and learn about weak points in your own arguments. In that way, "losing a debate" is far more fruitful than winning one. You learn a lot more that way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Yup, this is almost always how I feel as well.
The 'almost' is because occasionally people will make extremely prejudiced or even bad faith arguments. On those rare occasions I feel it's important to call them out clearly, if only for the benefit of onlookers or because I feel uneasy letting truly misguided positions stand.

I'm not talking here about strongly religious folk (which I'm not) or strongly conservative positions (which I disagree with).

More deliberate racism, sexism other arguments made for effect. Thankfully those extremes aren't common here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Winning a debate" seems like a waste of time.

"Having a debate" on the other hand seems like a very worthwhile activity.

During a debate, you subject your own views to scrutiny and learn about weak points in your own arguments. In that way, "losing a debate" is far more fruitful than winning one. You learn a lot more that way.

For the exact same reason I like to try and steelman 'opposition' arguments, rather than strawmanning them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know this kind of exchange and I accept that it is usually called "debate" but I think it's more precisely explained by the moniker "rhetorical competition". It is a skill set useful for lawyers, politicians and apologists who have to argue the case of their clients/donors. It uses "rhetorical devices" which would be called out as logical fallacies in a philosophical debate. The "winner" is the one who most creatively lies for their cause.

This sounds like dirty lawyer talk to me. Us common folk have a beer and argue about politics, women, sports and how bad our bosses are. The winner is the one who doesn't have to go home straight after his shout due to his wife calling.