Debating styles

[FemMecha]

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?

 

[disregard]

clean

attack weak points

 

[Varelse]

Emotion is irrelevant, I try to look for areas of agreement first, and then attack the weak points in the areas we disagree on.

 

[nightning]

How do you approach debate?

Depends on the nature of the debate. What's the goal behind it? If it's just friendly discussion between friends I first seek to understand the context behind the question. After that question the validity of statements made by the other person. Poke holes at everything in order to find the essence of their arguments. Evaluate the merit of those then recompose it together with my beliefs. So in this case it is not about winning, but finding the truth.

If it's a "debate" with a bullheaded individual... I just attack, shred their points apart.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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?

There is no opponent in debate, only one that you work with as a team to explore ideas. You argue to seek the truth by exploring ideas and never to drive the point home.

 

[Totenkindly]

There is no opponent in debate, only one that you work with as a team to explore ideas. You argue to seek the truth by exploring ideas and never to drive the point home.

And you practice this... how?

 

[ptgatsby]

How do you approach debate?

I don't like debating, I find the concept of beating the other person a waste of time. I look for understanding the differing view points.

In those cases where I had to debate, or actively convince someone, my main methodology is emotion. (FWIW, emotion is roughly 3 times as effective as information AND reason in convincing people of something. Proven over and over, especially with voter outcomes. And currently proving true again in my own Strata/building).

 

[nightning]

I don't like debating, I find the concept of beating the other person a waste of time. I look for understanding the differing view points.

In those cases where I had to debate, or actively convince someone, my main methodology is emotion. (FWIW, emotion is roughly 3 times as effective as information AND reason in convincing people of something. Proven over and over, especially with voter outcomes. And currently proving true again in my own Strata/building).

Use of emotions in "debates"... Is it okay to replace it with arguments where you want to win? As oppose to debates to find truth? There are two separate ideas flowing around here.

What I noticed in people is they either use one technique or the other when they try to convince somebody. The T approach of hitting them with logic or the F approach of overwhelming them with emotions (guilt-tripping, appeal to the conventional sense of how things should be). I found it more effective to mix the two together. Give NT emotions and they wouldn't be able to handle it as well and they relent... give SFs logic... they become overwhelmed and they will accept everything you say. Yes... I'm manipulative.

 

[ptgatsby]

Use of emotions in "debates"... Is it okay to replace it with arguments where you want to win? As oppose to debates to find truth? There are two separate ideas flowing around here.

I was assuming that we weren't talking about formalized debates with a rule set... In that case, points and counterpoints are more rational, and the emotional content is normally not as important. But nor are you really going to do anything other than 'win'. Both sides are just strategizing with the knowledge they have, nothing else.

What I noticed in people is they either use one technique or the other when they try to convince somebody. The T approach of hitting them with logic or the F approach of overwhelming them with emotions (guilt-tripping, appeal to the conventional sense of how things should be). I found it more effective to mix the two together. Give NT emotions and they wouldn't be able to handle it as well and they relent... give SFs logic... they become overwhelmed and they will accept everything you say. Yes... I'm manipulative.

Oh yah, that works well. Delivery means a lot in informal settings too! It's one thing to say each of these lines (this is taken from an actual 'debate' that was had recently - in short, a small group trying to convince a large number of people to vote one way)

"There have been 10 break ins this month, so we should get an security system"

"There have been 10 break ins this month, and it has cost us this much, and replacing the keys will cost us this much, therefore over the long haul we would end up saving money and having more security"

"There have been 10 break ins this month, with strangers walking up and down our halls, lurking in the garage and stealing things from our home. We can’t feel safe in our own home anymore! We need a security system to keep us and our belongings safe - no one wants to come down to their missing or vandalized car, and one of these times, it will be something worse!".


In most cases, the 2nd is nearly as effective as the first... but the third tends to be roughly three times as effective. Mixing in some facts and knowledge, but loading it with emotion, is often the best way to do it. Also, fear is far more likely to win out than other emotions.

 

[Totenkindly]

Use of emotions in "debates"... Is it okay to replace it with arguments where you want to win? As oppose to debates to find truth? There are two separate ideas flowing around here.

Yes, I was thinking these are two different things.

If you want to win, you have to use what tools you have... and as gatsby says, in politics especially, emotions are a large factor for success. (This is why GWBush beat Gore in 2000, among other things, and even while Clinton was so successful.)

What I noticed in people is they either use one technique or the other when they try to convince somebody. The T approach of hitting them with logic or the F approach of overwhelming them with emotions (guilt-tripping, appeal to the conventional sense of how things should be). I found it more effective to mix the two together. Give NT emotions and they wouldn't be able to handle it as well and they relent... give SFs logic... they become overwhelmed and they will accept everything you say. Yes... I'm manipulative.

hee hee. But... it's all for their GOOD, right? As long as you use your powers for good?

SFs are impressed by authority and like to keep the peace. So treat them kind and give them some impressive sounding arguments that seem to be authoritative in nature, and they'll buy into it, usually.

NTs are a little trickier. If you have a solid case, you can sell them on it, but they will find the flaws if they can, and they hate being coerced into anything -- they really have to think it's their choice. Emotional overload might do something to them, either muddy their thinking, but it's liable to blow up in your face too. I suppose seduction would work, for the opposite sex.

As far as NF's go, I don't think I will share any of THAT... in case I need to use it.

 

[nightning]

hee hee. But... it's all for their GOOD, right? As long as you use your powers for good?

For them... it's for them... I benefit on the side but they don't have to know

NTs are a little trickier. If you have a solid case, you can sell them on it, but they will find the flaws if they can, and they hate being coerced into anything -- they really have to think it's their choice. Emotional overload might do something to them, either muddy their thinking, but it's liable to blow up in your face too. I suppose seduction would work, for the opposite sex.

As far as NF's go, I don't think I will share any of THAT... in case I need to use it.

Hmmm yes, taking it too far with NTs will blow up. I think the trick here is to convince them that they came up with the solution themselves. What ptg said about "there are strangers walking up and down the hall" fits in this scenario.

NFs? Easy enough give us the good old That usually does the trick

 

[FemMecha]

Use of emotions in "debates"... Is it okay to replace it with arguments where you want to win? As oppose to debates to find truth? There are two separate ideas flowing around here.

That is an important distinction. I see no purpose in trying to win someone over to something not true. I can see that winning is a main goal of debating, but I'm naive enough to think winning at the expense of reason is more of a mishap than anyone's deliberate goal. I have no use for an activity based on social dominance over reasoning and truth. One of my main motivations in life is to get my brain in order to think clearly and see things as they actually are. Mental distortions actually frighten me because they are such a trap for so many people, and generally destructive.

 

[ptgatsby]

I have no use for an activity based on social dominance over reasoning and truth.

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... continuing along the same example as above...

There was an apartment complex that had just cleaned out their piping system, which cost a fair bit (something like 200$ per apartment). It was done to prevent corrosion. Unfortunately, a few months later, one of the pipes had broken and really expensive repairs (from water running into a wood structure - the worst possible outcome!) had to be undertaken.

It turned out the pipes were already corroded and ready to fail in other locations. To re-pipe the building, they have to get approval from the owners (75% for lump sum charges). They brought in the engineers who had done the inspection, who put up a nice slide show and gave their professional opinion - these were engineers, not the ones doing the replacement. It was voted down.

Shortly later, they held a special meeting that included a city engineer, the same engineers, the cost breakdown, the impact (it ranged from being forced to do it within the next year anyway to complete structural breakdown).

It was voted down. Now, these engineers has presented the numbers. This was a 100% outcome, with known costs and outcomes. I summarized the highlights, but the idiocy at the personal level was astounding. "I can't pay for it" was common, but scary enough, so was "Let them fail! See if I care!" and "I just paid for fixing one of them, I'm not paying any more!".

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.


FWIW, this was three years ago, or so. 6 months after being voted down the second time, one pipe didn't just corrode, it virtually snapped. The ensuing cleanup and pipe replacement cost roughly 60,000/suite to fix (mandated by law this time). The original estimate was 11,000. That's ignoring the building becoming unlivable for about 6 months. The suites were worth about 180-300,000. At least the tenants didn't sue the strata... but not for a lack of trying to gain support for it. For not warning them.

Mind you, in pure debates where there is no personal stake... emotion is pretty low. But in those cases where winning means more than ego... emotion is, unfortunately, still the stronger force.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And you practice this... how?

Easy, when you argue make sure that your goal is to seek knowledge and not give affirmation to your prejudices.

 

[sundowning]

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?

With mock and sarcasm, though I've toned that down a lot. Some topics are only worthy of such, however.

I'm fond of crafting strawman arguments, and that's made me relatively good at destructing them. If I see one, I'll usually (try to) be serious and even-keeled in my attempts to argue it.

In threads where the discussion clearly takes on a tone of discovery and not debate, I'll try to fit in with the emotional environment.

I dislike urgent or dramatic posts that broach social topics, so I'll usually examine my own beliefs about - or emotional disposition on - the topic, and find a way to use them as a lever in whatever side I happen to fall on in the debate.

 

[rivercrow]

Could we please stop calling a values-based decision "irrational"?

Making decisions from the basis of values (we value our independence, our collectivism, our appearance of authority) is not substantially different from making a decision from the basis of logic.

 

[Totenkindly]

"Irrational" in type theory is usually reserved for the perceiving functions, aren't they? (And "Rational" for the judging functions T/F?)

But I guess you were referring to gatsby's use of the word. I guess he should have used the word "bad [decision]" or "senseless" instead.

 

[rivercrow]

Regardless of technical usage, I still think we (and I include me) use "irrational" when the reasoning is not logic based.

In my last job, I served on executive interview panels. Following one interview, we discussed the probable need for the candidate to "save face" if he took the position. He was going from a high-paying financial job (he'd been downsized out of that job) to a moderately high-paying job in local government where the salaries would be posted in the local newspaper complete with names.

To me, the concern over "saving face" seemed illogical and silly. We had certainly not discussed this with the candidate to get his opinion. For the other members on the team--in particular, the senior manager who brought this issue up--this was a serious issue and a plan needed to be created to resolve it.

 

[ptgatsby]

"Irrational" in type theory is usually reserved for the perceiving functions, aren't they? (And "Rational" for the judging functions T/F?)

But I guess you were referring to gatsby's use of the word. I guess he should have used the word "bad [decision]" or "senseless" instead.

If that was in reference to me, I meant to use the word irrational, which I feel is the correct word. This was not a value judgment that was made. If it was, I would of questioned the values as being misplaced... By definition, using reason to make a decision means rational, and irrational is defined as not being consistent with reason.

I'm not against value judgments. The above story was to highlight that people make outright back decisions that are self defeating (ie: I don't want to pay, so I'll pay more later)... not to imply that they are made from value judgments at all. (If they were, then I have a real issue with making those kinds of value judgments, and they seriously impair people to make a reasonable choice! I don't believe that is the case... most of the time. This is a matter of group psychology - few shared the same values to start with.)

 

[Beyonder]

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

Rhetorics combined with informal logic. What else?

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?

Yeah, it's called 'rhetorics'. Good stuff.