The three stages of debate... that I have thus far identified. Stage one: The did not, did too stage. At the this stage debate is comprised of two parties that each makes a claim against the other while denying the claim against them. This style of debate consists largely of ad hominem arguments (directed at the person rather than the position that they maintain.) Stage two: The set them on their heels stage. By this stage the person has grown tired of ad hominem arguments and has sought a better way to debate. In this stage the person in mindful of the claims that they make and do their best to not make claims of fact that they cannot prove. Secondly they are very careful about the claims they make of their opponent and tend to avoid such arguments because of lessons learned in stage one. In stage two offense is the best defense. Any claim of fact made is backed up by objective source citation upon request. Factual claims that an opponent makes that are contested are followed up by a request for objective source citation and 99 out of 100 times they will deflect. At this point the opponents deflection is almost always in the form of another claim, which is rebutted with a request for objective source citation, so on and so forth. Stage two is meant to better understand the root of our opponents argument. Sadly this tends to rub people the wrong way. I know from my own experience that when I make a claim that I cannot back up, but double down rather than admitting defeat, that this is the epitome of a biased self-deluded state. Do not fool yourself, we have all been there. When we make knee-jerk claims they come from the subconscious and the subconscious is where our bias resides. The biased argument flies out of the mouth (or onto the screen) before the conscious brain has a chance to stop it. At this point ego kicks in and makes it all but impossible to back down. By now our bias has fully taken root in consciousness and we perceive our bias as truth and fact, in essence we have effectively bullshitted ourselves. By this point objectivity does not exists and without objectivity no productive discussion can happen thus this is where I tend to bail. Biggest lesson from stage two? We humans would rather gnaw off our own arm than admit to anyone that we may be wrong and often are. Stage 3: The point out their bias stage. It has been my experience that we tend to contradict ourselves more than we know or would like to admit. We are all hypocrites with double standards which means that we see others flaws easily but tend to be blind to many of our own. This leads us to often make negative claims of others that we are guilty of too. In debate when we see a contradiction or a double standard in our opponent, point this out in a demonstrable way to show the folly of the opponents argument. Hard to argue with a direct quote from your opponent placed right next to their contradicting claim. All but the most biased will understand that this is check mate. The most biased will find an incidental difference and argue that makes the claim completely different. What is stage 4? Give me another decade and I may have an answer as stage one to three took me 20 years of online debate to figure out. I know, and I agree, I am a slow learner. Better late than never I suppose. Thoughts?
Thank you for providing that insight. Speaking for myself I found that Stage 1 was tiresome so I moved up to Stage 2 where most people are at IMO. Stage 3 is the amusing part of debating IMO. From my own experience Stage 4 is being able to admit that you are wrong. Stage 5 is always taking the high road. Don't allow others to drag you down to their level. I am struggling to get there.
You are all obviously Master Debaters Hopefully you will continue to find the experience to be pleasurable and gratifying, as well as productive of great clots of fertile thought which will shoot out of the intellectual process to cover you and your companions in viscid intellectual enlightenment
Any worthwhile debate would involve complexity created by those participating and if it can be designated by simple stages is not worthwhile. Evaluation of subject matter and debate partner would be "Stage One" if we need to define and research into detail stage II. Unfortunately stage 3 too often ends in dismissal due to obstinance. Have A Nice Day
The stages are quite subjective as I learned to be able to say I was wrong at stage 2. As for your stage 5, I am working on that but have a long way to go I am afraid. Damn ego just does not want to get out of the way sometimes. Thanks for the input.
The stages are just the path I have taken upon review. I understand that others will take similar but ultimately different paths. I find most debate in the last 20 years "ends in dismissal due to obstinance". Although I have found that the way I approach an opponent influences the flow of the debate. Perhaps stage 4 for me is learning to be a better orator in order to better facilitate a productive dialogue.
Cool. Except, you forgot stage 4 ---at least here on PF anyway. Interview @TheGreatSatan since he wrote the instruction manual on stage 4 ---or check my signature if he won't respond to you.
I don't see what you are describing as stages. They sound more like facets or dimensions. Anyway I don't see much value in debate. If you disagree with someone, it's often because your fundamental values are different. You might as well try to fly in a submarine.
I like the idea of iron-manning others' position. We all think in different ways, a fallacy you find in someone else's argument might be not so much a fallacy as a mere miswording. It is not enough to find someone else's fallacies, we must understand other's arguments to see if the fallacy is actually there in the way they think, or if it is mostly an artefact of oneself trying to understand it (or them trying to make it understood). Basically, unless the opponent's seems moderately persuasive to you, you probably have an unfair understanding of it.
Your stage 4 was my stage 1. Your stage 5 is something that I rarely do but perhaps you have a point.
Unless a word is contested I see no need to define words. If you are being argumentative then I also have no desire to participate.
I've never been to stage 5. I carefully word stage 4 to stay within the rules. 'Thats moronic' is the same as 'you're a moron', but only one is technically a personal attack But I rarely lower myself to even that...