I could title this, 1 sure way to know you’re winning a debate, but that may not necessarily be true.
Eventually, if you argue a hot enough topic long enough and well enough, your opposer will eventually have had… enough!
There are so many logical fallacies people use in debates without knowing it, but the really bad ones seem to present themsevles in the death throws of an argument.
First, let’s do a small narrative on the life of a debate that was not planned. I’ll assume these two individuals are intelligent about the topics they are going to argue and have an otherwise cordial and respectful knowledge of eachother. (they are ex-mates or evil villain versus super hero types). I’ll even throw in that both members are well versed in their particular morality/ethics and can argue down to some simple level of metaphysics if need be.
The conversation probably starts out of something in the newspaper, which gives Person X a reason to throw out his best gems on what he thinks about a current situation. I think of this as the “Casually agree and move on or Formally disagree and die” moment.
Person B (probably should be Y, but why?) has 3 options:
- Agree with some follow-up that concurs with A’s statement
- Admit a lack of research in the topic, expect to hear more from person A as they continue the quest for approval of wit
- Disagree – and prepare for mental battle!
Person B takes option 3 and enters battle with Person X (usually much to person X’s glee I might add, even if they don’t look it at the time).
For the sake of space, we’ll assume X and B use proper debate tactics for the first several volleys. They both lay out their premises and agree on the singular point of contention. Both argue with fact and/or agreed upon common logic and they are well versed on recent topics, so several possibilities are considered.
Let’s say Person X runs out of facts and insights and expects his argument to stand without failure now. But, person X is running out of correct answers to B’s unyielding desire to get his point across.
X is going to start appealing for situations that are loosely related to the topic. You have to remember the ol’ rule about Scientific Law to get this idea.
Remember how a Law in science requires only one exception to defeat it? Person X is going to try and convince B that he is on to a law (makes B feel convicted about his point) and then find one exception to defeat the law.
Person X is extending his right to example in so many bad ways, person B should just call victory. All person B needs to be ready to do is point out how excessively different any example is compared to the original argument from that point on. B will often feel the need to explain why it is different, but B would be wise to stop at noting simply that it is different.
What’s happening on X’s side? A weird and obvious flaw.
“You believe in (something)”
“I will create a list of things containing (something) and ask if you believe in them as well. When you say ‘No’, I win!”
Flagrant use: “I believe in science that finds new ways to release clean energy” countered with “So you believe nuclear bombs are a good things science has done?”
Not so obvious: “I believe the US has the right to go to war in the name of national security interests” countered with “So you believe the US had good reason to go to Iraq?” or “So we should attack North Korea?”
I like to refer to this as the ‘Okay, what about…’ scenario.
I’ve also noticed this is usually when emotive responses enter into the fray. Person X may have started out overly cool and calm while person B pried around for holes in the argument, but once the chink in the armor has been found, or perceived to have been found, the emmotional fists come flyin’ in.
I might assume this is why we are advised to keep our ‘cool’ in an argument. It might also be why some assume that the first person to loose his ‘cool’ has ‘lost it’. Lost what?
The argument!
I point these flaws out for a reason, but that’s enough for now. I’ll extend in the next post.
9 Comments
Good input and valuable advice!
“Eventually, if you argue a hot enough topic long enough and well enough, your opposer will eventually have had… enough”
To strike out of context, this is not true.
Where is the balance between one who is trying to argue completely false statements against a person who is left with no choice but to restate the obvious truth?
What you have is harassment to the point of volition where the one restating the obvious truth “loses it.”
That means the one arguing false statements wins based on said principle? Hell of a Candy Land if you’re merely wishing to feel intellectually intact, but in reality you’re a moron.
Your example is well laid out and sensible, but the actual problem lies within the entrapment of the debate. Unfortunately, I fear the strategy is merely a bypass in order to win the battle, but not the war.
What’s missing is the absolute truth. There’s no sense in wasted energy trying to decipher the “winner” in a situation when there is no right or wrong answer. You are simply masturbating for self improvement. Good for you, it never hurts, but to build yourself on such a flawd principle is merely a “Cat’s Game.”
Great read.
that would be flawed* – Update if you’d be so kind.
Restating an obvious truth is not always the final wall you hit. Usually, in the case you are pointing out, both sides will realize there is a new premise they are arguing on.
I already laid out the scenario in the post prior to this one, but I’ll redo a sample for practice purposes.
Let’s say you are arguing the death penalty with someone. You believe the death penalty should stand and the other person is arguing that no person has the right to remove the life of another.
As the argument wears on, your friend realizes he’s arguing personal execution versus the right of the ‘state’ to punish its citizens. He doesn’t have a problem with the state law of death penalty, but he believes the sentencing is decided by too few people and should be more of a state wide vote.
He’ll have to bring up different scenarios and ideas to argue, so just restating your case isn’t going to do it. You’ll need to find the flaws of logic in his new presentation.
And finally, the best debates are always forward moving with everyone winning in some way. Because I’m speaking more on typical day to day debates, the mentality of your average person is going to be win or lose, not truth and untruth.
Fair enough.
But, instead of wasting your time proving each other “win or lose,” why aren’t you asking probing questions to file down the block and get to the truth or untruth of the matter? Too much time is being spent discovering that you’re not even talking about the same thing. Human nature, I suppose, but it sounds more like a lack of attention on both sides of the spectrum. It’s more “lose-lose” than “win-win.”
My point being the nitpicking at words, instead of deriving the circumstance or empathy of the other person, is a waste of energy. I understand your inquiry or fascination with it, but I think I’m having a hard time understanding the purpose other than to feel good at pointing out the shortcomings of others. (sweet movie quote moment)
Perhaps what is nagging me so much is the perverseness in studying debate. It seems that while you could spend so much time finding the formula to winning a debate every time you succeed in very little truth. That “truth” being the ability to understand why, how, and where they come from, ultimately eliminating the needless time spent on winning an equally purposeless arguement. On a day to day basis, of course.
Sure, debate is all about winning or losing, it’s how we derive facts, ideals, morals, and society. But, I think in the case where it comes to personal thoughts or opinions, I lose the purpose of spending time and energy winning such an argument. I mean, why not just understand where they come from and how they formed those opinions?
For instance, I’ m niether agreeing nor disagreeing, but merely probing you for answers so that I can better understand where you’re coming from, and I can safely bet we’re learning more about each other in the process. It’s a debate, but neither you nor I are going to win, but merely come to truths with ourselves, and THAT is more fascinating than winning an arguement.
Why not just make it a point to do this all the time?
There is a bit of irony in all this, but with that aside….
Depending on who you think you are in the scenario’s I’ve laid out, I am stating very much what you are. But, let’s be more specific.
You say nitpicking of words vs. circumstances, compassion and empathy, but I think I mean to combine them. In other words, it’s important to be careful NOT to assume what others mean, or where they are coming from. I think I know what you mean, and I’ll explain it next to see if I’m close
There are those who feel they can ‘win’ a debate as long as they have all the proper definitions. These are people who like to win on accuracy and not validity. They look for misuses of speech and syntax in the other’s debate style and don’t actually debate for any truth at all, merely victories (or something like that)
I might even stretch so far as to say that some people ‘know’ exactly what another person means, but chooses to point out what that person ‘said’, not what they meant. It is as if they ignore the part of their brain that’s telling them the other person has a point.
The reason I feel accuracy of premises is so important is exactly for these reasons. I don’t have to argue what the definition of a word is, I just need for my debate partner and I to agree for ‘the sake of argument’. (hence the phrase)
‘For the sake of argument’, quite literally means, ‘so this argument can survive’. This phrase is usually followed up by ‘can we at least agree that ‘x’ is true?’. A more dominant debater might just imply this as true by saying ‘As we already know …’.
To bring both these points back around to why I wrote this post, I was warning people who are of ‘good-mind’ to expand their truths through debate, they should realize that there are those who debate simply to win, or to imply strength.
I went on to point out symptoms of such people. Notice, the person who loses in the post was also the same person who went ‘fishing’ for a debate instead of just asking for one. So am I really writing about debate semantics?
Not at all. If I was, this is far to unscholarly a way of documenting it. I’d need citations, examples, and logic diagrams to make such paths. I have no such ambition, and it’s far beyond the more pragmatic scope I hope to attain here.
I would say I’m documenting manipulation. I’m noting the various tactics and tones used by those who are far less interested in truth and far more interested in getting a desired reaction.
I actually wrote these two posts and a third one all at once, but broke them up for various reasons. The third post isn’t far around the corner, and I plan to extrapolate from the first two to a more grand and more important angle.
If you take the pattern of situations I’ve used, the third might even be guessable. I appealed to personal interactions with friends in the first, then contentious co-workers in the second. If I were to pull back to the next sized scale, I would say ‘society’ is the next topic.
Fun.
Still seems like a game? I forget what you’re playing.
It would be if this were a ‘how-to’ topic.
Instead, it’s a very reserved ‘don’t you see’ topic. The question might follow ‘Do I see what?’
Of course early on in the debate either person b or person x could take the “you’re not listening to me” approach, which assumes that their own argument is so flawless that the other person must not understand what they are saying causing them to repeat themselves over and over again. This is because social interaction causes polerization. If Person A and Person B are in a group and Person A is strongly in belief of plus and Person B is weakly in belief of minus, Person B’s responces will reach the point of being strongly in belief of minus, even if their belief isn’t that strong to begin with.
Post a Comment