scarletghoul
13th February 2011, 23:37
What are the best things to remember when debating someone ? Here are 2 i can think of :
1. You will probably not change their mind, and it's almost certain that they won't admit to being wrong in the middle of a debate, so don't try to change their mind. Your objective should be to sway the 'audience', who will be more likely to side with the most reasonable argument, as they have no pride at stake. So keep this in mind and demolish your opponent's arguments for everyone to see. If there is no audience (like in a private conversation) there is usually no point in arguing unless the person is open-minded, because you will just get frustrated and there will be no reward.
2. Do not let your opponent define the terrain. They will want the debate to focus on things and have certain premises that benefit them, and if you confine yourself to their terrain you have already lost in a sense. For example, if someone says "homosexuality is not natural !" you shouldn't go "yes it is !", you should undermine their whole conception of human nature leaving them with no ground to stand on. Or if someone says "Mao killed 10000000000000000 people" you should not go into the statistical details of the Great Leap etc, but rather show the flawed double standards of the 'death toll' based arguments, by pointing out that capitalism causes millions to die every year from preventable causes, that if anticommunist standards were applied to capitalist leaders Queen Victoria would be the biggest mass murderer of all time,etc etc (and add if you can that the Great Leap put a stop to Chinese famine for good and the population exploded under Mao with life expectency doubling and so on. but only after youve addressed the overarching double standard)
Please post yours ! :)
Widerstand
14th February 2011, 01:38
On speeches and such, from the CIA PsyOps Textbook I found at redson's:
APPENDIX
The purpose of this appendix is to complement the guidelines and
recommendations to the propagandist-guerrillas expressed under the topic of
"Techniques of Persuasion in Talks and Speeches," to improve the ability to
organize and express thoughts for those who wish to perfect their oratorical
abilities. After all, oratory is one of the most valuable resources for
exercising leadership. Oratory can be used, then, as an extraordinary political
tool.
2. The Audience
Oratory is simultaneous communication par excellence, i.e., the orator and
his audience share the same time and space. Therefore, every speech should be a
different experience at "that" moment or particular situation which the
audience is experiencing and which influences them. So the audience must be
considered as "a state of mind." Happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc., are
states of mind that we must consider to exist in our audience, and it is the
atmosphere that affects the target public.
The human being is made up of a mind and soul; he acts in accordance with his
thoughts and sentiments and responds to stimuli of ideas and emotions. In that
way there exist only two possible focuses in any plan, including speeches: the
concrete, based on rational appeals, i.e., to thinking; and the idealized,
with emotional appeals, i.e., to sentiment.
For his part the orator, although he must be sensitive to the existing mass
sentiment, he must at the same time keep his cold judgment to be able to lead
and control effectively the feelings of an audience. When in the oratorical
momentum the antithesis between heart and brain comes about, judgment should
always prevail, characteristic of a leader.
3. Political Oratory
Political oratory is one of the various forms of oratory, and it usually
fulfills one of three objectives: to instruct, persuade, or move; and its
method is reduced to urging (asking), ordering, questioning and responding.
Oratory is a quality so tied to political leadership that it can be said that
the history of political orators is the political history of humanity, an
affirmation upheld by names such as Cicero, Demosthenes, Danton, Mirabeau,
Robespierre, Clemenceau, Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini, Hitler, Roosevelt, etc.
4. Qualities in a Speech
In general terms, the most appreciated qualities of a speech, and specifically a
political speech in the context of the psychological action of the armed
struggle, are the following:
* Be brief and concise A length of five minutes [line missing in Spanish
text]...that of the orator who said: "If you want a two-hour speech, I'll start
right now; if you want a two-minute one, let me think awhile."
* Centered on the theme The speech should be structured by a set of organized
ideas that converge on the theme. A good speech is expressed by concepts and
not only with words.
* Logic The ideas presented should be logical and easily acceptable. never
challenge logic in the mind of the audience, since immediately the main thing
is lost - credibility. As far as possible, it is recommended that all speeches
be based on a syllogism, which the orator should adjust in his exposition.
For example: "Those governing get rich and are thieves; the Sandinistas have
enriched themselves governing; then, the Sandinistats are thieves." This could
be the point of a speech on the administrative corruption of the regime. When
an idea or a set of guiding ideas do not exist in a speech, confusion and
dispersion easily arise.
5. Structure of a Speech
Absolute improvisation does not exist in oratory. All orators have a "mental
plan" that allows them to organize their ideas and concepts rapidly; with
practice it is possible to come to do this in a few seconds, almost
simultaneously with the expression of the word.
The elements that make up a speech are given below, in a structure that we
recommend always putting into practice, to those who wish to more and more
improve their oratorical abilities:
* Introduction or Preamble One enters into contact with the public, a
personal introduction can be made or one of the movement to which we belong, the
reason for our presence, etc. In these first seconds it is important to make an
impact, attracting attention and provoking interest among the audience. For
that purpose, there are resources such as beginning with a famous phrase or a
previously prepared slogan, telling a dramatic or humorous story, etc.
* Purpose or Enunciation The subject to be dealt with is defined, explained as a
whole or by parts.
* Appraisal or Argumentation Arguments are presented, EXACTLY IN THIS ORDER:
First, the negative arguments, or against the thesis that is going to be
upheld, and then the positive arguments, or favorable ones to our thesis,
immediately adding proof or facts that sustain such arguments.
* Recapitulation or Conclusion A short summary is made and the conclusions of
the speech are spelled out.
* Exhortation Action by the public is called for, i.e., they are asked in and
almost energetic manner to do or not to do something.
6. Some Literary Resources
Although there exist typically oratorical devices of diction, in truth, oratory
has taken from other literary genres a large number of devices, several of
which often, in an unconscious manner, we use in our daily expressions and even
in our speeches.
Below we enunciate many of their literary devices in frequent use in oratory,
recommending to those interested moderate use of them, since an orator who
over-uses the literary device loses authenticity and sounds untrue.
The devices that are used the most in oratory are those obtained through the
repetition of words in particular periods of the speech, such as:
Anaphora, or repetition of a word at the beginning of each sentence, e.g.,
"Freedom for the poor, freedom for the rich, freedom for all." In the
reiteration, repetition is of a complete sentence (slogan) insistently through
the speech, e.g., "With God and patriotism we will overcome Communism
because...:
Conversion is the repetition at the end of every phrase, e.g.: "Sandinismo
tries to be about everyone, dominate everyone, command everyone, and as an
absolute tyranny, do away with everyone."
In the emphasis, repetition is used at the beginning and at the end of the
clause, e.g., "Who brought the Russian-Cuban intervention? The Sandinistas. And
who is engaged in arms trafficking with the neighboring countries? The
Sandinistas. And who is proclaiming to be in favor of nonintervention? The
Sandinistas."
Reduplication, when the phrase begins with the same word that ends the previous
one. For example: "We struggle for democracy, democracy and social justice."
The concatenation is a chain made up of duplications. For example: "Communism
transmits the deception of the child to the young man, of the young man to
the adult, and of the adult to the old man."
In the antithesis or word play, the same words are used with a different
meaning to give an ingenious effect: e.g., "The greatest wealth of every human
being is his own freedom, because slaves will always be poor but we poor can
have the wealth of our freedom."
Similar cadences, through the use of verbs of the same tense and person, or
nouns of the same number and case. For example: "Those of us who are struggling
we will be marching because he who perseveres achieves, and he who gives up
remains."
Use of synonyms, repetition of words with a similar meaning. For example: "We
demand a Nicaragua for all, without exceptions, without omissions."
Among the figures of speech most used in oratory are:
Comparison or simile, which sets the relationship of similarity between two
or more beings or things. For example: "Because we love Christ, we love his
bishops and pastors," and "Free as a bird."
Antithesis, or the counter position of words, ideas, or phrases of an opposite
meaning. For example: "They promised freedom and gave slavery; that they would
distribute the wealth and they have distributed poverty; that they would bring
peace, and they have brought about war."
Among the logic figures are the following:
Concession, which is a skillful way to concede something to the adversary in
order to better emphasize the inappropriate aspects, through the use of
expressions such as: but, however, although, nevertheless, in spite of the fact
that, etc. For example: "The mayor here has been honest, but he is not the
one controlling all the money of the nation." It is an effective form of
rebuttal when the opinion of the audience is not entirely ours.
Permission, in which one apparently accedes to something, when in reality it is
rejected. For example: "Do not protest, but sabotage them." "Talk quietly, but
tell it to everyone."
Prolepsis is an anticipated refutation. For example: "Some will think that they
are only promises; they will say, others said the same thing, but no. We are
different, we are Christians, we consider God a witness to our words."
Preterition is an artifice, pretending discretion when something is said with
total clarity and indiscretion. For example: "If I were not obligated to keep
military secrets, I would tell all of you of the large amount of armaments that
we have so that you would feel even more confidence that our victory is
assured."
Communication is a way to ask and give the answer to the same question. For
example: "If they show disrespect for the ministers of God, will they respect
us, simple citizens? Never."
Rhetorical questions are a way in which one shows perplexity or inability to
say something, only as an oratorical recourse. For example: "I am only a
peasant and can tell you little. I know little and I will not be able to explain
to you the complicated things of politics. Therefore, I talk to you with my
heart, with my simple peasant's heart, as we all are."
Litotes is a form of meaning a lot by saying little. For example: "The nine
commanders have stolen little, just the whole country."
Irony consists of getting across exactly the opposite of what one is saying.
For example: "The divine mobs that threaten and kill, they are indeed
Christians."
Amplification is presenting an idea from several angles. For example:
"Political votes are the power of the people in a democracy. And economic votes
are their power in the economy. Buying or not buying something, the majorities
decide what should be produced. For something to be produced or to disappear.
That is part of economic democracy."
The most usual plaintive figures of speech are:
Deprecation or entreaty to obtain something. For example: "Lord, free us from
the yoke. Give us freedom."
Imprecation or threat, expressing a sentiment in view of the unjust or
hopeless. For example: "Let there be a Homeland for all or let there be a
Homeland for no one."
Conmination, similar to the previous one, presents a bad wish for the rest. For
example, "Let them drown in the abyss of their own corruption."
The apostrophe consists of addressing oneself towards something supernatural or
inanimate as if it were a living being. For example: "Mountains of
Nicaragua, make the seed of freedom grow."
Interrogation consists of asking a question of oneself, to give greater
emphasis to what is expressed. It is different from communication, since it
gives the answer and is of a logical and not a plaintive nature. For example:
"If they have already injured the members of my family, my friends, my
peasant brothers, do I have any path other than brandishing a weapon?"
Reticence consists of leaving a thought incomplete, intentionally, so that
mentally the audience completes it. For example, "They promised political
pluralism and gave totalitarianism. They promised political pluralism and gave
totalitarianism. They promised social justice, and they have increased
poverty. They offered freedom of thought, and they have given censorship. Now,
what they promise the world are free elections..."
No Ha Muerto
16th February 2011, 21:48
I like Robespierre's tactic, and have used it to some success (up to some competitions): present the position of your opponent as logical and rational, basically showing the audience your approval. When that's done, dissect it thoroughly; exposing any logical fallacy. I'm sure it's the oldest tactic in the book, but it has not failed me as of yet.
~Spectre
17th February 2011, 06:15
If they've any brains they will try to define the terrain. You have to define the terrain.
It depends on the position you're speaking in.
For example:
Say you're doing a standard parliamentary debate format (popular among universities in North America and Europe):
Initial speaker speaks for 7-8 minutes.
Focus should entirely be on setting up 2-4 constructive points. Don't worry so much about pre-empting opposing arguments if you still have a chance to speak after this.
If you're speaking 2nd, in most formats, you goal should STILL be to frame the debate by setting up 2-3 constructive points of your own. Also perhaps make a remark on opposition philosophy and why yours differs.
THEN after all that is done, finish up your time by destroying their points. Don't be afraid to sprinkle in the occasional joke here to prevent yourself from seeming too dry.
So if you want a formula
speaker 1: "Hello hi there, what an honor to be here tonight!"
1)
a)
b)
2)
a)
b)
3)
a)
something about all of us as thinking people rising to correct the problem you're arguing against.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Well! That was an interesting and provocative framekwork my opponent gave us, but I think he fundamentally goes wrong when he tries to talk about the economic aspects of X. I think his economic analysis is flawed, but more importantly, this should be a debate about people, and not just profit. I hope to prove to you all tonight why this is the case.
independent constructive points:
4)
a
5)
a
6)
a
then respond to as much of original speakers
1
2
3.
Close with a witty remark.
_____
Then the next round will depend on how many responses are available.
In some formats, rebutting the opening speaker in your opening remarks is considered against the rules, in that case you just basically fatten up your constructive framework instead of immediately responding.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.