I have been debating for ten years on december 10th 2016 and feel i have a lot of methods to share with everybody. seeing as how i have been on a lot of forums, i would like to say that there are a lot of different styles out there. usually the dominant posters will dictate the styles that are used, like on this forum, it is common for debaters to simply make a comment that is obvious without justifying it, like this; "Obviously trump likes to kill people, because his police are killing people." "Trumps loves people and will not kill them." The question immediately in my mind is "why?" why does trump love or hate people? this calls for justification, maybe with some psychology, or evidence, but preferably some "science." if you were to justify yourselves with science, not quotes, but rather your interpretation of quotes you read, you could justify yourself and make your point much clearer, yes?
Let's go further into 'style?' My method is usually to use 'steps' or 'the ladder.' this is where i say what i want to do in the beginning, then i use common analogies and common general knowledge to take a step away from something simple to declare the foundation for my understanding of the topic. then, i will try to arrive by a conclusion based on those steps, yes? i find this is a great way to inform those not in the know, basic science wise, of how i have arrived by my conclusion. the problem here is that it is very long, but the good side is it is very safe, yes? Another style i am aware of quite similar, but i only use it when i am angry. this is 'overload.' if you were to be debating someone that is irritating, then you could bombard them with facts supporting you, concisely. this would mean that you would state fact upon fact you declare supports you, in short sentences. often people break what you are saying apart and derail you or try to derail the thread by fixating on a point you think you made quite well, and they stray from the topic because they just want to win. i hate this, as it is supposed to be a learning experience for everyone, of course. Yet another style is to 'just use evidence.' this would be where you research your position on the net through stats you gather and then let them support you. for example, i was looking for a way to explain the way i see the near east morally, as they seem to be very moral to the naked eye, yes? then i decided that publishing the statistics of the murder rate, rape rate and other issues of the region would back me up, and they did. So the three styles i have elaborated on, if you care, are 'cooperation,' 'melee,' and 'community populism.'
Hi, I've been debating and discussing on the internet circuit for 14 years and find that some opponents just won't admit to being whupped even though I've posted evidence to decisively win my case! For example there's a debate currently going on here about 9/11- http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/481955-911-theories-there-any-facts-24.html and although I've posted a news clipping in post #240 showing Al-Qaeda admitting to doing 9/11, he refuses to concede and is trying to say the admission is not conclusive evidence! How would you handle someone like that?
I am not a professional debater by any stretch of the imagination, but I did do some debating back in high school. (Back when we had to walk to school up hill both ways.) I will say that your attempted generic statements could be easily deflected without any justification. Brett: "Obviously trump likes to kill people, because his police are killing people." Me: Then Obviously thugs want to die, or they would not get out of the car with guns in their hands. Brett: "Trumps loves people and will not kill them." Me: Obviously, he needs them to vote for him in 2020. I usually did well, because I would bait the opposition into an area that they did not intend to go, or was prepared for. That frustrated them, and lead to a easy victory. But then that was a lot of years ago.
Well, you have backed yourself up with evidence and popular opinion - it is a little known fact to most americans that al queda had something to do with it, yes? maybe you could ask him to justify his position with evidence or at least some 'obvious theory?' in the case of obvious theory, it would be like cultural sciences or psychology, of course.
Derailing threads is not a good way to conduct oneself, unless you get back to the topic that is being discussed. i like the way you try to answer the actual content of the topics you can identify, but, don't you think i have ignited a little inquisition into 'ways to debate?'
He neatly sidesteps the question "who did 9/11?" by saying he doesn't know. All he says parrot-like is that there's no evidence to show muslims did it..
There is another way to win people over to your logic and side - 'examples and parallels.' this would be where you draw an example from a different line of thinking and a different case to a similar outcome. In the case of who did nine eleven, you could say that, as you believe that muslims did nine eleven, other things al queda has done, and proving they did it too. take for example a story you find on the net about other attacks on the world trade center; So, this proves that they have attacked the world trade center before, which is actually 'bias,' yes? when it comes to an example, you could say this is related to sharia law's bent on economics, which if you were to research would show that it is about outsourcing too, yes? a parallel might be that they are terrorists that attack stuff. But a better example of a parallel would be in another case. say you are trying to show how terrorists are prepared differently mentally; you could show how n.f.l. players prepare themselves before a game by getting very physical with each other, as this is a very physical game they are about to have - they want to hurt the enemy, yes?
What tactic do you use against ad hominem attacks? What is your view on the Socratic Method? What purpose do you see in debate?
Is debate about winning? If so what constitutes winning? A problem I have with your source is that you did not include a link. Do you take The Guardian story at face value? I do not as I have not vetted The Guardian to make sure that it is an objective source, thus I would need the link so I can deep dive the original source and vet it. I have found that too often what is reported in the news differs from the original source.
What about those who do not take the bait? When people use red herring or strawman against me I tend to say that the rebuttal is outside the scope of my argument or otherwise deflect and redirect back to the topic. But sometimes I will follow a red herring if it is on a subject that I find interesting.
I try to avoid comparisons as they are often perceived as a strawman or a false equivalence. I prefer to stay on the specific topic in an attempt to stay focused.
I ignore attacks. i don't know what that method is. debate teaches us how others think. - - - Updated - - - An opinion is popular if it is easily understood - fire hurts us. if it is something like religion though, there can be wrongs righted through turning your opinion into the popular opinion with evidence. - - - Updated - - - I find this is an excellent way to back yourself up, as, the laws of nature carry out from one science to the next, yes?
Indeed,among other things such as how to be a better orator. Which does not answer my question as to "What objective value is there in "popular opinion"? I argue that popular opinion is not synonymous with an objective fact thus my skepticism of popular opinion and my affinity for objective facts. To me the evidence of a claim makes an appeal to popular opinion unnecessary. Popular opinion will sway the sheeple, but those of us who are not easily swayed by peer pressure will likely be unimpressed and wait for an objective fact. Yes, but I often like to use the Socratic Method where analysis is walked backwards to it's axiom.
Okay, i understand your bent on populism, as, it is often the thing people that debate need to debate to stay relevant. if there was only popular opinion, there would be no room for people like you and me to make original observations. it is a fact that everybody on this forum plays devil's advocate, yes? this is because then there is something o debate, honestly, we will get nowhere by merely agreeing with each other. the fact that populism is different from county to count in your country leads to a rich culture of differences, of course. this means what is popular is different from state to state, and, people are either happy where they live, defending the ways of the state, or they are unhappy and seek these forums to vent their opinions and ideas for change. populism is usually what is obvious, and in being obvious, is already explained.
Why does one need to be relevant if other than to satisfy the ego? A sign of a good debater is one who can objectively argue the positive and the negative. In my opinion few can effectively play devil's advocate as doing so requires the ability to objectively understand the opposing view and there is often a difference between thinking one understands the opposing view vs actually understanding it. I think many humans to a large degree adhere to confirmation bias where only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion is accepted while evidence that is contrary to the predetermined conclusion is summarily dismissed. I find what is obvious to often be subjective. For example; It is obvious that Trump is the right choice for America. The truthfulness of that statement all depends upon who you ask thus the subjectivity of what one considers "obvious".
I agree with everything you say, and don't see why we are debating; are there some leanings you would like to share with the debate going on here, or will you continue to reduce the experience you have had as being merely subjective?
1- Debating is FUN and is like a chess game, your mind against your opponents, and winning is fun too.. 2- I post links sometimes but they often have a limited shelf life, but happily Google is our friend and we can run searches to confirm the validity of what posters have said. For example if anybody wants confirmation of the article below they need only type 'Ahmadinejad Al-Qaeda' into the google search box and over a dozen hits will come up..
"debate teaches us how others think." - Brett Nortje I agree with the above quote as our debate has given me your perspective. I can tell you what I have learned in my 15+ years of debate. Do you have any specific questions? Many if not most debate topics are subjective.
I've been "debating" over boards for 20+ years now from a slew of different positions and ideologies. If you want to debate me that Trump loves eveyone I would laugh... Look, truth only stalls debate. Most people that want to debate have absolutely no inteterest in truth - they're interested in promoting stupid ideas or a stupid agenda. The truth is most people cant prove a damn thing because they're debating issues that have no clear answer.
I value civility and objectivity. Productive debate requires civility as an ad hominem attack will likely be met with an ad hominem attack thus devolving the debate into a mud slinging contest. I value objectivity over bias as bias limits knowledge. I also place little value upon ego as my ego tends to make me cocky and arrogant which limits my ability to learn from the perspective of others, thus I do my best to keep my ego in check... which is no small effort.
I never get angry in debates, it's just not in my nature, and it drives some of my opponents wild! They resort to ever more frenzied attacks, hosing me down with sprays of verbal machinegun fire to make me lose my cool but it doesn't work, I simply keep returning carefully-aimed sniper shots to shoot them down.. One oppo once posted to warn his mates about me- "He's a tough nut to crack folks, don't mess with that one!"
