Debating styles

[Bushranger]

If you are certain that you are right:
Against a rational: Treat it like trapping a dangerous animal. Slowly nibble around the edges of the argument, reducing the amount of room they have to move until they are forced to admit defeat.

Against a non-rational: Engage them in discussion to determine what has convinced them of their opinion. It helps to understand their underlying value system. Make a convincing argument aimed at fitting into their value system.

Against someone incapable of rational discourse: Drugs and electroshock therapy.


If you are unsure of your position or it is a grey area argument:
Against a rational: Try to be more structured in your approach than your opponent, avoid bringing attention to weak points in your argument. Try to shore up your argument from multiple angles.

Against a non-rational: Essentially the same as before. You will probably have to counter more rebuttal. How effectively you do this is essential to winning.

Against someone incapable of rational discourse: Probably not worth the effort.


If it is a formal debate:
It is all about structured argument optimized for clarity and balanced rational/emotional appeal.

[Beyonder]

Or just read Quintillians Institutio Oratoria:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...oria/home.html

[hereandnow]

If staring at the person doesn't work....:hi:

My debates tend to be short if dealing with a rational person. My goal is to understand or, if the other party is irrational, to engage them in conversation until they step on their own feet.

[Maverick]

I will try to approach debate in a rational way. Of course no one is ever truly rational... It is a pleasure though when you manage to discuss with someone that stays level headed, who tries to be logical, objective, uses good facts and from whom you actually learn something interesting.

[reason]

I'll leave it to my opponents to explain my debating. I usually just write things as they come to mind.

[niffer]

throw out things they can never answer. ask them to define things that cannot be defined. point out what each side has to stand on as a whole.

[nom4d]

The problem I've always found with debate is that if you are working with pure data it is biased, and if you are not working with data it is very biased.

Getting past the bias is easier with NTs, but largely it still is required. Like the debate on gun control. The data tells a different stories depending on who gathered it, what the gatherer's bias was, who is interpreting it, how much they know about the way the study functioned, and their personal beliefs.

[krassy01]

i don't like debate if by definition you are talking about 2 people at a podium who have opposing views and can't be swayed, if however you are talking about debating where you have a perspective but someone can help you to see it another way, in that case i love it,

[logan235711]

yeah, I don't debate, I argue ;p

[Economica]

I used to believe this too... until I was faced with the reality that people tend to reject reasoning and truth.

I've come face to face with people who will absolutely make the wrong decision, in mass, even with all of the information required. It's almost like they want to exercise their power in making the wrong decision. I'm not talking about different viewpoints...

(Example)

Unfortunately, people are not rational. Situations like this turn into a debate - camps form. If the irrational side uses emotion (in this case, the cost, the unfairness, distrust of professionals), they are far more likely to lead the pack to an irrational decision. Even in situations where it is obvious which way things should be done, emotion is more powerful.

I agree. The only place where reason rules supreme is in science, and even there only in the long run. In general, expecting reason from others will lead to disappointment.

It's not all bad news for NTs though: Using reason to understand, predict and exploit human irrationality can get you very far indeed. (Admittedly this is probably more of an NTJ thing.)