Debating styles

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I love to debate, but I'm frequently disappointed in the capacity of people to decide things based on logic. I've come to the conclusion that only if your audience is a computer should you try to win a debate based on logic, even if you're right. And let's face it, very few of us argue for the benefit of computers. I liken it to Schoolhouse Rock cartoons or Flintstones vitamins...a little showmanship along with your dry facts will bring people around to your side more effectively than facts alone.

[lbloom]

I like to explore ideas with people who are comfortable with my open-ended, explore-on-the-run style of exposition, with the possibility of backing out of hypotheses.

I'm also capable of thinking through a topic and closing all loopholes and leaks before I talk about it, but that's much less fun. It almost seems like work.

[Totenkindly]

I like to explore ideas with people who are comfortable with my open-ended, explore-on-the-run style of exposition, with the possibility of backing out of hypotheses. I'm also capable of thinking through a topic and closing all loopholes and leaks before I talk about it, but that's much less fun. It almost seems like work.

Do you feel like you invest more in your Ne or your Ti? (Just curious!)

I have the same feelings you do. If I'm in a situation where I know there's a good chance I need to "shore up my arguments," I can do so compulsively but usually feel very drained afterwards and don't really like to get that immersed in it.

I'd rather talk with people I trust or who are benevolent towards me, and use the "run through the possibilities" technique to explore an idea (if I'm bothering to explore the idea with other people and not just doing it alone)... then dump the dead ends as we evaluate each on the go and see whether it makes any sense. It's just so much easier.

[Nighthawk]

I don't like to use emotion or emotional manipulation ... and I'd just as soon not debate people who do. For me, it is a fruitless endeavor. I also find precious few people who are willing to debate based upon logic alone ... especially on the non-MBTI boards.

I used debate as a method of learning. I tend to form points upon which I can agree with the other person and then agree to disagree on the rest. Sometimes I am swayed, other times my "opponent" is. I don't see a debate as something I have to win, but rather as a learning tool.

[BlackMita]

Oh man. I suck with argument. I just state my frame of reference and then pretend we’re not debating. I try to end an argument quickly. I identify more into my own and the other’s outlook, and induce why we’ll never agree, or why it isn’t even important or expected that either of us should change our way of thinking (which is almost always predisposed to a mix of type and age different anyways).

If I really do have the intent to debate, it’s usually to verify a suspicion of “Why would the person think that?” and not to learn from another viewpoint. So I don’t bother most of the time, else I keep subtle enough it barely initiates a debate.

[lbloom]

Do you feel like you invest more in your Ne or your Ti? (Just curious!)

My Ti is shy and never quite comes out with people around. I would need to be very comfortable with my sparring partner to be able to sustain my favored degree of rigor in thought and speech. So it's mostly Ne in debates - more expansive, less accurate, only partly thought out.

[Athenian200]

It definitely depends upon whom I am talking to, and the nature of the issue. If the person is more emotionally motivated than logically, I'll make my point in an emotional fashion. If the opposite is true, then I will use logic to make my point. However, if the issue is emotional in nature, I may only use logic to show that emotions are not logical, and hence not subject to logical rules. If the issue is logical, I'll explain the pointlessness of expressing emotions about a logical fact or argument.

Another thing I do is I tend not directly contest a viewpoint, at least not at first. I list the parts I agree with, and then carefully explain why I disagree with the rest, asking for clarification in case I misunderstood.

If they annoy me a bit, seem really entrenched or immobile, or I'm just in a really pedantic and sarcastic mood, then I take a slightly more aggressive approach. I feverishly research something, and use that knowledge and subsequent analysis to repudiate their view. This forces them to either counter with information that is better than mine, modify their argument, concede my point, or simply appear ridiculous by clinging to their view. I usually prefer to work with someone rather than fight them, however.

Another unrelated oddity is that even if I'm getting along fine with someone, I'm often still (unconsciously) noting every error they make in their thought processes, waiting to use it against them later if I need to, even though I'd prefer not to. If they annoy me enough, I might lash out at them by pointing out every single mistake they've ever made, which can sometimes have the effect of cutting them to pieces, and then I regret it.

[Sahara]

What do you consider the most effective debating style for yourself, and for the general outcome of a given topic?

In many debates, political ones for example, there is a great deal of manipulation involved as well as subtle emotional dialog. People often win the debate based on their ability to use such strategies, rather than on the merits of the facts. This also occurs in the legal system with the manipulation of the jury. It is clearly a common tactic, but one that I generally avoid. The debating style I value is one in which emotional content becomes irrelevant, including both pleasantries and attacks. During my internet adventures, it has been difficult to find debating partners that share that style. It seems that a rational argument does not require any manipulation, unless there is no one available to see reason. The reliance on tactics over facts has always suggested to me an underlying flaw in the debater's reasoning. What are your opinions on this?

How do you approach debate?

I agree with what you are saying, I really enjoy reading (can't do them myself) rational debates, but what happens when you are debating with someone who doesn't understand logic, reason, or facts, who doesn't deal in terms of pure rationality? (like an infp for example )

I find a certain amount of emotion to produce better results in a debate.

[Totenkindly]

Well, one thing to note is that often there is not a "correct" viewpoint, but merely a decision between two world views. In those cases, it seems that the focus will be more on inspiring people to one's view of the world, because there is no "objective assessment" that proves that one view is better than another.

I don't know how I feel about that. Sometimes that sort of thing might be appropriate. People are all different, and the intellectual rigor that one person demands will leave another person uninspired and unwilling to commit to living out a particular worldview.

(I know I am rather expanding the topic in question here, from perhaps a very focused argument over one particular issue to an entire worldview.)

I know this has come up in spiritual issues, in my discussions with others especially in a Christian context. I demand a particular amount of evidence or logical connection from definitive evidence to ideology. Some other types of people do not require that same amount of connection between evidence and belief; they take many other things into account, including the positive outcome/behavior associated with the worldview, or how it leaves them generally feeling better than other viewpoints do, and so forth. This impacts the style of arguments they use as well as the style of arguments that impact them. Is it inappropriate to approach them on those terms?

In any case, to respond to Sahara's comment, I think most people are affected by positive emotion, whether or not they want to admit it. It never hurts to inspire people in a debate or to raise their positive emotion level.