• Hey all, due to some issues with false DMCA takedown requests, we've had to remove and censor a few things until the situation is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Debate tactics.

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Ethan

Banned
This is a thread meant to discuss certian debate tactis that you have come across. This isn't so much a debate but a thread where the community can discuss. I thought it would be quite interesting. What methods do you find challenging? Are there any annoying debate tactics that you've encountered? How do you usually approach a debate? As for me my weak point is when other members challenge me on a purely analytical perspective. Part of the reason why this is hard for is becaue my mind doesn't quite work like that. I can work well with morality, religion, an what not, but I don't fair so well when math and hard core analytical skill is brought in because I don't have the "wiring" if you will to respond to it properly. My mind tends to drift, and when I do respond I usually end up making a straw man :P.

I usually approach a debate looking for bad conclusions in my opponents posts. Alot of the time the reasoning people present is not to shabby, but the conclusion they make based on it can be downright ridiculous. I also like getting into the nitty gritty and asking questions. Why do you believe this? What are you hoping to achieve? What does his mean? Sometimes that takes people into points of their argument that they didn't even realize. I also like to debate by using analogies, it makes it easier to express my point, and the argument from my view at least goes at a faster pace because most of the time you can understand an analogy better then a five paragraph refutation. Granted analogies do not always hold water, but the beauty of it is that they are easy to fix once your opponent exploits a loophole. As for annoying debate tactics, that would include changing the subject, begging the question, demonizing your opponent, but not all annoying debate tactics are fallacies, In fact I see most debate tactics as annoying when I'm losing the upperhand. ;)
 
Last edited:
What methods do you find challenging?
None.

Are there any annoying debate tactics that you've encountered?
Where do I begin... anecdotal evidence; people who do not read/understand your argument; people who introduce tangential points and digress to distraction; people who try to pass a subjective argument as an objective one.

How do you usually approach a debate?
I never debate without research and always take an objective stance, supported by scientific or empirical evidence, or at least intuition and logic. I try to avoid ethics or morality because such subjectivity makes it very difficult to reach an objective conclusion; you may as well agree to disagree immediately. I will occasionally troll with a deliberately inflammatory post if I think a debate is just going round in circles, or to induce more stupidity from the side I oppose.

If the opposition annoys me enough, I have no qualms with resorting to name calling. In fact, I enjoy waxing lyrical when it comes to insults. It serves the dual purpose of tongue-in-cheek irony and stress relief =]
 
I find plenty of things challenging in a debate. :p Some purely logical rhetoric is tough to get around because I can't always pick out non sequiturs, or because definitions can be manipulated. That last part goes for religious debates. I shun those with a passion! There are so many different ways of perceiving a thing, and I lose interest after fighting over definitions for a while. Countering and using sources is a weak point, too. Finding them, iterpreting them, refuting them; it feels kind of like source citation from college, and after two years, I still make mistakes with that. :D

The only things I find annoying are bad attitudes. And maybe an argument that might be considered 'hitting below the belt' in a boxing match. I guess that covers ad hominem arguments, but there's more than that. If a person gets a little too vehement with their point of view, that only invites their opponent to strike up an equally defensive attitude. That gets a little tired after a while, too.

I approach debates in two ways. The first way is when the topic is something important to me. When that's the case, I'm usually more prepared, considering I've probably had a lot of thought on the subject. I approach the debate with enough confidence to actually counter opposing arguments, something I'm not too great at, lol. The other case is when I have little to no background or interest in the topic. Then I approach mainly to learn from the debate. I favor small, nearly commonsense conclusions to begin with, and see if the knowledge I gain from participating can help me make more notable arguments.
 
Are there any annoying debate tactics that you've encountered?

Anything involving trying to prove/disprove God. It can't be done either way, and it always comes down to Evolution vs. Creationism, which actually has little to do with the existance of God, anyway. I've learned to stay out of those debates.
 
Hakajin said:
Anything involving trying to prove/disprove God.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with this. Sometimes such debates are complete eyesores... But sometimes what is worse is where some idiot dreams up an excuse why you CANNOT prove God (then twists the idea of faith) with a horrible reason - memories lean back onto y = mx + b. The other type of argument I despise is where one person pretty much knows they are wrong but just can't bring themselves to admit it. Such debates mingle on where that person thinks up the faintest of excuses to "justify" their argument.

Anyway, I like to approach debates analytically. Often when I'm confronted with an argument that is NOT a complete pushover, I get out my pen and paper and try rewriting that argument as a logical proof. From there I look at four main areas, the link, the assumptions, the evidence and the conclusion in that order of what I deem importance. From here I choose what areas of that argument I will attack (if any) and thus refute them. However sometimes arguments are just so vague that drawing out such a roadmap is difficult; so in response I usually just ask for clarification.
 
I only debate when I have something I think is good to say. It seems foolish to just make an ill supported argument. I also try to make people see my point through questions and by carrying their logic to the extreme, which seems to work well. I try not to get too rude and do not swear; it seems to do more harm than good to your argument.

I get annoyed at people who just make a post or two, and, thinking they MUST have won, just leave, never to return. Ironically, their logic is often very weak. I also got annoyed when Babylon claimed I had changed the topic on the Hell as a Scare tactic debate. (No offense, but I was annoyed.) I also get annoyed when my arguments are ignored, or worse, a small side point stems a pointless mini-debate. I get annoyed when people become insulting, particularly if they agree with my point, because they are degrading my well though out argument.

I try to take a fair look at both sides of the issue, and give others the benefit of a doubt. For example, I don't agree with some christian view points, but I don't go saying 'and see, this is why all christians are idiots.' That's not an argument, that's an obvious insult, and it doesn't change people's point of view.
 
Last edited:
Well, seeing as I'm not much of a debater and mostly an observer, I don't have much to say. Whenever I do say something though, it generally is just to nitpick at holes in an argument or logic. I don't say much often because other debaters are better at explaining what I mean, or because I might get torn apart by an opponent.

As far as things I hate, demeaning opponents. I see people call each other names, generalize and stereotype, and even completley take something out of context and sigging it. Most good debaters here are intelligent people that would probably otherwise get along until they become frustrated at each other in this section.
 
I find it annoying when people use personal stories to argue generalizations. Like when people think that just because something isn't true for them that it can't be true for anyone else, or when they put way too much weight on coincidences. I also find it annoying when people seem not to understand probabilities. Like when people say that there is a certain probability that something is true, so you cannot argue for it or against it; which is clearly logical fallacy, since even though you may not be able to show it's true in the absolute, you can still show that it is more likely to be true than not.

When I debate, I usually try to show that the other side is wrong by using their logic in a different case and showing that you arive at a wrong conclussion, so the logic must be bad.
 
As far as things I hate, demeaning opponents. I see people call each other names, generalize and stereotype, and even completley take something out of context and sigging it. Most good debaters here are intelligent people that would probably otherwise get along until they become frustrated at each other in this section.
Click to expand...

Oh, me, too, especially when it's someone who hasn't bothered to carefully read what you posted and twists your words around. Sometimes it's all I can do not to post some snarky comment in retaliation. Fortunately, I don't run into that too much.
 
Oh another debate tactic I find quite annoying: wearing your opponent down. This is when your opponent drags out the debate hoping to end on the last word. You end up quiting the debate not because your arguments weren't bad, but you simply become too tired to keep on going.
 
Last edited:
i have this weird feeling that im considered a bad guy.
 
To be honest, I just start by analysing the arguments for fallacies and other illogical things. Then, from there, I just continue to rip apart the argument - it just keeps leading to one thing and another when they try to defend their fallacious argument.
 
Oh another debate tactic I find quite annoying: wearing your opponent down. This is when your opponent drags out the debate hoping to end on the last word. You end up quiting the debate not because your arguments weren't bad, but you simply become too tired to keep on going.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm like that... I'll keep going as long as I think I have a point, even if the other person and I start going in circles and I keep repeating myself... The last time I ran into that, it seemed to be a problem with understanding.

This is not something that anyone does intentionally, but I hate it when I think I have a good point, and no one responds to it. What does that mean? Did I win? Is it a dumb argument? Is there just nothing anyone has to say to it? And then I don't have anything to post back, so I end up dropping out.
 
hakajin, i dont find anything wrong with what you just said. if the point is not refuted and it is significant to the subject, you have a right to keep repeating it if it is either not addressed or not refuted.
 
Simple, read what is in my signature. It can pretty much be used as a counter to absolutely anything, or at the very least it can end the debate off in such away where I don't look foolish.
 
If there is no logic, I will create logic where it should not be found and apply in ways that don't make sense, to places that may not even exist....
Click to expand...

If your mission is to promote logic, then you've been failing at it. This forum is a haven for fallaciousness.

Oh and one other thing. I hate people who can't be fuck to read the first post.
 
one thing i wish people would do is keep things short and sweet. sometimes it isnt necessary to type a thousand words just to respond to one question.

but hey, that could be more of a preference rather than a tactic. i rarely ever type in long sentences.

making tons of paragraphs for one simple question just makes the debate get longer and longer in word count.
 
Last edited:
To be honest I think a lot of the long statements serve no other purpose by being long than to befuddle opponents. All that does in my opinion is slow down the debate.

I agree; concise and succinct is the way to go!
 
Conquistador said:
To be honest I think a lot of the long statements serve no other purpose by being long than to befuddle opponents. All that does in my opinion is slow down the debate.

I agree; concise and succinct is the way to go!
Click to expand...

I argue that it can be quite the opposite. Making a long post with more material can possibly save time and answer questions that would have been asked with a shorter statement. By no means am I againt short and sweet statements, but they as well can make things long and arduous. So I'll say the obvious and simple answer "It depends" :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top