I think the title is self-explanatory. Basically, how would you construct the blueprints of an intellectual and healthy debate? What are the do's and don'ts of such and how should you face the situation of being involved on such debate?Are there any sort of helpful techniques that you personally use, not to necessarily win a debate, but to explain clearly your points on a particular issue to the other party that your challenging or being challenged to?
How to debate.
- Thread starter AUM
- Start date
In a formal sense. Eliminate time constraints you can't fix the world in a 15 min blurb. One side says their idea. It is then cross examined. The other party then does the same. For larger deals this could be broken down into single points and alternate throughout.
Informally just don't interrupt write it down and be civil... pretty much take what O'reilly or Oberman and do the opposite
Informally just don't interrupt write it down and be civil... pretty much take what O'reilly or Oberman and do the opposite
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,219
- 246,552
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
keep it amicable. back up all your opinions with solid facts. don't take disagreements as personal attacks. aim to learn, not just to win, etc. etc.
I think the atmosphere for fair debate begins with the idea that all parties have a right to be heard and understood whether their views are acceptable or not. It also recognizes that everyone brings something to the table, different backgrounds, experiences, knowledge, skills, understanding, so it is likely unrealistic to not expect disagreement. There's also the tendency to believe that either no one is right or the issue is either black or white. Sometimes, debates becomes too focused on the persons involved than recognizing an issue cannot be simplified to it's most common denominator without willingness on some level to concede or compromise if cooperation is needed to come to decision or conclusion.
Use humor...Not to make fun of people. I dont think it hurts to throw in a monkey 
It can take the sting out of what you say. We are looking at words on a screen. If you throw in a funny picture it can diffuse some of the emotions. This helps. People will shut down if they are angry. Then the debate becomes meaningless.
It can take the sting out of what you say. We are looking at words on a screen. If you throw in a funny picture it can diffuse some of the emotions. This helps. People will shut down if they are angry. Then the debate becomes meaningless.The problem I have using this method is that I have to be really careful in keeping a straight line of reasoning because as you're asking questions to the other party to contradict their arguments you may find yourself lost on the point your trying to convey.Use the Socratic Method. Lawyers and politicians use it all the time.
Good question. How do they differ? Given that the goal of the discussion is to defend your position against an opposing argument.
So once you have gathered the ideas from the other party, how could you use that to advance on the debate? Do you make them defend their position first or do you start by stating that the arguments that you posses are more accurate?
Good point. What would be the criteria for reliable sources that you can use to defend your position?
How do you think it is the healthiest way for you to show disagreement to the other parties involved?
Use humor...Not to make fun of people. I dont think it hurts to throw in a monkey
I really don't try to debate online for this same reason. I can't accurately tell if someone is taking the issue to seriously to the point of frustration while doing it face-to-face is easier for you to measure if you should let the other person know to chill. That's a great suggestion though.
Thanks everyone. These have been some helpful points thus far.
Last edited:
Use humor...Not to make fun of people. I dont think it hurts to throw in a monkey
I think as long as you're tactful, you shouldn't have to resort to monkeys or humor or anything else to 'soften' what you say. Humor or making light of a situation in a serious debate is not recommended. Sometimes it can make you look like a jackass.
I think what makes a successful method for presenting an argument is thus:
1. Facts first.
2. Your interpretation/opinion
3. Sources (if applicable)
4. Anticipate your opponents counter-argument
5. Read through your post and make sure to take out any caustic jibes you might have made 'in the heat of the moment.'
I believe that humor/insults/sarcasm make the debate too personal and it becomes more than just the exchange of factual arguments. It upgrades to out-doing the other. And I, frankly, think less of an opponent who's trying to get any sort of emotional reaction out of me (appease me/anger me). You can find plenty of that primitive psychological bullshit in a elementary school yard. Stay on level.
In most cases Socratic method works very well. It's based on asking questions so the opponent will be forced to think for herself and therefore become smarter. However there are times when you don't want for her to become smarter - when running for a post or defending a guilty client for example. The most important tips for application are these:
Lately I've become interested in another style of debate based on philosophy of Martin Buber and works of Arbinger Institute. There's a logic that reality is non-contradictory therefore if two people are arguing then they can't both be right. Your opponent wants to win so you help her to do that. By doing that you automatically eliminate the emotional resistance she might have had towards you. And if it happens that she was right then you've supported the right cause. If she's wrong then using combined effort you will both quickly discover that and you will not have to waste time and effort to persuade each other.
This style of debate works best with very difficult and emotionally charged topics: religion, gender miscommunication, ethnic problems, etc.
- The parties should agree not to interrupt each other under no circumstances.
- Have a fixed agenda. Preferably in a form of questions.
- Ensure that all members of a debate would get an equal time for speaking.
- It helps tremendously to have opening and closing circles when each party speaks in turn about the topic.
Lately I've become interested in another style of debate based on philosophy of Martin Buber and works of Arbinger Institute. There's a logic that reality is non-contradictory therefore if two people are arguing then they can't both be right. Your opponent wants to win so you help her to do that. By doing that you automatically eliminate the emotional resistance she might have had towards you. And if it happens that she was right then you've supported the right cause. If she's wrong then using combined effort you will both quickly discover that and you will not have to waste time and effort to persuade each other.
This style of debate works best with very difficult and emotionally charged topics: religion, gender miscommunication, ethnic problems, etc.
I actually think the opposite. I will try to remember not to do that with you. I think that we can agree to disagree.
Things are so serious that I think using humor makes it possible for people to debate while realizing that we have to be able to talk to each other. If we cant talk to each other that creates so much more toxicity. We HAVE to be able to talk to each other for our sides to be heard.
So I will use monkeys and you dont have to.
We can agree to disagree.
