Debating Techniques

[Snitza]

Well? What tips or "weapons" of the art of debating have you picked up as leftists?

[Funky Monk]

Depends on the nature of the debate.
A good tactic is trying to lead your "opponent" where you want him to go.

[Snitza]

What do you mean, like with wordplay, or...half-lies? It's good to use statistics out of context if that make the opponent look bad.

[NovelGentry]

I personally am fond of arguing the meaning of what someone is saying... as many of you well know. I tend not to let go until a true meaning is shown, and then I use that to present "the true nature of the beast." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... the problem is more often than not it leads into a debate about definitions -- although personally I think these have a huge amount of value, as I've come to find out people on the left have very different ideas of how things should be defined. I, personally, think a lot of this needs to be cleared up before any serious debating can happen.

Let me give you a few general pointers though -- assuming you're not in a forma debate and you have an infinite amount of time for your rebuttal all these tips should apply and work well:

- DO NOT give your whole point away at first: by reserving some of your initial points you can continue to argue examples which back them up and then overcome the entire argument with those primary points at the end. In a forum scenario this doesn't always work because people might not read the entire thread, but it seems to work really well in spoken debates.

- NEVER let them misquote you, quote you out of context with misleading implied meaning, or stick words into your mouth. If you have an audience that is a bit slow on the uptake you'll be looking at them dominating the debate simply out of using your own words against you which are not actually your own words. To clarify, quoting out of context is ok, if the statement stands on it's own -- but often times (particularly in leftist debates) it would seem the case that there a lot of conditionals, as a lot of it is theory or an ideology which has set across those conditionals. Thus it's easy to make someone look like they said a certain thing has to happen for sure, rather than based on that condition.

- ALWAYS get the last word, of course!

- Try to stay away from subliminal arguments, they will bite you in the ass. This is what I consider where you're trying to say something that sounds objective and neutral such as "Just look at what my opponent said", "reread the forum/transcript"... and preceeding these with what you want their outcome of doing so to show -- example:

My recent debate on the thread on the RCYB has ended with flyby saying "Well that's a charitable justification [referring to redstar's justification for the words he used to prove RCYB input]. hehehehe. Since it has been hard to keep on that topic, since so many of the "comments" attempted to reach verdicts without information. Just re-read the thread!"

He tells you to go reread the thread, but not before telling you what he believes I already did/said, which in this case is "attempting to reach verdicts without information" [paraphrased].

- DO NOT let them imply you've done something you haven't. Be careful with this as this can lead to the last point, if you attempt to tell someone to re-read what was said. Instead of saying "what I really said is...re-read and you will see for yourself" just refute with what actually happened, for example:

"I did have information, as I made quite clear my direct arguments against Avakian were made based on a paper I'd JUST read, aswell as some work I'd raed in the past. Once again, I admit that I'm not addicted to his works and I don't feel the need to read every single one to understand the flaws which I had pointed out."

This is easily justifiable, and while indeed it can be seen by "rereading" the thread, I'm not telling people to go back and look. The Debate should never go "backwards" -- always forwards, this is how you get into vague assessments and implications... if you want the audience to recall something from the past tell them NOW what you want them to recall by giving them the quote. Had flyby pointed out a specific instance in which I made claims without reading information (once again, in context) then I would not of even had that rebuttal available.

-- Hope this helps, Cheers

P.S.: If you noticed, this is me trying to get the last word again ;) as I never responded on the RCYB thread. But in all seriousness, this argument outlined my points too well to not use it.

[ComradeRed]

Argue your opponents' point to demonstrate its absurdity. "Yeah, capitalism is great. Why, if only it could exploit more people!"

[Strange]

Usually I try to lead my opponent into saying something. I try to get them to prove my point for me by asking questions of them.

If I am successful They usually have troubles trying prove that my point (the point they have just proven) is incorrect or "wrong" you could say. :P

This seems to work well.

[Wiesty]

u can try and make them sound like an idiot, that usually gets them to shut up giving u the victory

[STI]

When your opponent is being serious, make jokes. When your opponent is making jokes, be serious. It's entertaining for the people watching, and makes your opponent look like a bumbling fool. It'll keep you in control.

Remember that the goal of a debate isn't about convincing your opponent. It's about convincing the people witnessing it.