• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Debating styles

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

hereandnow

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
335
MBTI Type
INTP
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

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
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

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I'll leave it to my opponents to explain my debating. I usually just write things as they come to mind.
 

niffer

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,217
MBTI Type
ENfP
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
4
MBTI Type
INTP
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

New member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
1
MBTI Type
entj
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,
 

Economica

Dhampyr
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,054
MBTI Type
INTJ
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. :devil: (Admittedly this is probably more of an NTJ thing.)
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
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

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
83
MBTI Type
INTP
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

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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

New member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
423
MBTI Type
INTP
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

New member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
53
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.
 
Last edited:

lbloom

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
83
MBTI Type
INTP
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

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
927
MBTI Type
INFP
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 :D )

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

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 
Top