-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How to become an intelligent debater?
- Thread starter Breakage
- Start date
- Status
ThankYouDaletech
Banned
If someone says something and you don't have the skill or knowledge to refute it, just ask "Do you really think that?" or simply state "I hope you don't actually think that."
They might actually think that, and they might even be right, but you have planted the seed of doubt.
They might actually think that, and they might even be right, but you have planted the seed of doubt.
if this is specifically just for GAF or the internet in general. stop while you're ahead, as it'll generally not be worth your time. No matter how good of a debater you are or how solid your arguments and formulation is, you'll never convince people in general. You can look at the treads here and elsewhere, but even with solid evidence in your court, it's normally a shit show.
The best that you can do is present an interesting viewpoint that people might never have thought about, and there you can provide at least an interesting story. The only thing you will have done is just provide a compelling argument for folks who don't think much about it. However, you'll save yourself a lot of time, annoyance, etc by not trying to debate folks on the internet.
The best that you can do is present an interesting viewpoint that people might never have thought about, and there you can provide at least an interesting story. The only thing you will have done is just provide a compelling argument for folks who don't think much about it. However, you'll save yourself a lot of time, annoyance, etc by not trying to debate folks on the internet.
I would recommend reading Making it Stick. Click here for a thread I made on it. Essentially, it is a book that explains what we know about how we remember, what are the best methods to remember what we learn, and what are the best methods to learn how to recall information.
Essentially, it all boils down to spaced-repetition self-recall 'testing'. And 'testing' in this sense is any method that forces you to recall something from your long-term memory and explain it. And the more cognitive effort involved in that recall the better. So testing yourself after you read something about how this connects to that, how it fits in the bigger picture, and actually speaking that answer out loud (making sure to check if you are right afterwards) is the best method to start building knowledge that you can more easily pull out of your brain on the spot.
Key component of it is spaced testing though. So a piece of information that you are testing yourself should be something like a day, 3 days, a week, a month, a few months, etc. That is only an example so don't take it literally, and that schedule changes on how difficult you find the material you are trying to make 'stick'
Madison Paige
Member
Start writing a lot. Whenever you're lost in thought, open up a notepad document and start writing it out as if it were an essay, thinking even deeper about whatever the topic is. If you do this enough, you will start getting very good at it, and you will also start forming bits and pieces of arguments that you will later be able to pull up when relevant to a discussion. Participating in message board debates and finding IRC channels that have decent amounts of discussion will also help. There are also introduction to logic classes that can teach you about a wide variety of topics that are very useful for debate, as well as help get you into a more analytical state of mind when confronted with an argument.
exmachina64
Banned
Building on what others have said, you might find these resources to be of use.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/urban-st...25-argumentation-and-communication-fall-2006/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/urban-st...25-argumentation-and-communication-fall-2006/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm
Do your best to insinuate moral flaws such as any sort of bigotry or racism with your adversary within the GAF Terms of Service by using everyone's favorite means of stealth communication: codespeak! Examples include "tell us how you really feel" or "you sure feel some way about all this".
It requires no evidence to even establish an implication, and because you couch your baseless insults in passive-aggression, you won't trigger any obvious name-calling alarms in passersby. Congratulations -- you've successfully demonized someone without evidence and avoided a ban!
Also, use sarcasm like the above, whenever possible. Your goal in debate here is to earn eProps from friends, and you do that by making jokes. The more you collect for an argument, the more successful that argument.
...
In all seriousness, post on what you're educated about, learn where you're not, and present arguments coherently and honestly.
It requires no evidence to even establish an implication, and because you couch your baseless insults in passive-aggression, you won't trigger any obvious name-calling alarms in passersby. Congratulations -- you've successfully demonized someone without evidence and avoided a ban!
Also, use sarcasm like the above, whenever possible. Your goal in debate here is to earn eProps from friends, and you do that by making jokes. The more you collect for an argument, the more successful that argument.
...
In all seriousness, post on what you're educated about, learn where you're not, and present arguments coherently and honestly.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
I kinda feel this way too OP, Im better debating IRL than on GAF. I often feel as if my posts comeout disjointed or robotic here when Im quite eloquent IRL. I suppose it might be me overthinking things. Deleting one word and thinking for minutes how to restructure my point and still not feeling satisfied with the end result.
I suppose my advice to you is, dont over think things.
I suppose my advice to you is, dont over think things.
OK sure buddy, LMAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlgdUgHOic
To add to this, you can just reply with "u mad" (make sure to type it just like that) so that even if he gives you some angry sauce...you win!
If he actually makes some valid points like a jerk just say you were trolling anyways and let him know he got caught in your trap.
entremet
Member
You don't have to debate to enjoy online communities.
It's not a requirement.
The focus should be discussion. If debate happens, let it happen with an attitude of clarifying and understanding, expressing your point of view.
If you want to be informed, first start with curiosity. What are you curious about?
I don't care much discussing music, so I don't involve myself in those discussions.
But ultimately, it's about being humble, are you willing to learn and see others' point of view.
Sometimes you're wrong. It's fine to admit that.
And don't be a pushover. You can be civil and challenge others fairly. Don't be afraid of doing that, but with a tone of respect. And the same time know when to pick your battles. Not everything is worth debating.
It's not a requirement.
The focus should be discussion. If debate happens, let it happen with an attitude of clarifying and understanding, expressing your point of view.
If you want to be informed, first start with curiosity. What are you curious about?
I don't care much discussing music, so I don't involve myself in those discussions.
But ultimately, it's about being humble, are you willing to learn and see others' point of view.
Sometimes you're wrong. It's fine to admit that.
And don't be a pushover. You can be civil and challenge others fairly. Don't be afraid of doing that, but with a tone of respect. And the same time know when to pick your battles. Not everything is worth debating.
Ehh sometimes. Sometimes people just trot out a vocab list of "logical fallacies" they learned in tenth grade without actually making sure they apply. Sometimes people say "ad hominem" in response to insults; nah, insults can just be insults. People say "no true Scotsman" all the time even in cases where group membership might be strictly defined and a person *actually isn't* a "Scotsman".
Better than just dropping a phrase is to engage the argument and explain why it doesn't fly. Don't even say "ad hominem" just point out that the person hasn't engaged an argument; don't just say "that's a strawman" you gotta explain why their example isn't a good analogy for the issue at hand.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
Watch out for those kids that can twirl a pen with one hand..
Not only are there really fucking smart debators on gaf, the fucking genius ones make points with like a sentence injected with humor you are punching the big bag on here haha.
Not only are there really fucking smart debators on gaf, the fucking genius ones make points with like a sentence injected with humor you are punching the big bag on here haha.
This is the other thing. Appealing to logical fallacies is silly if your interlocutors aren't interested in formal debate. If everyone's just making jokes and clowning on something / someone then whatever. Fallate away.
Thanks for recommendation. I'm going to pick this book up. My memory is an issue at the moment. I can spend a week reading a book and I struggle to remember anything from it (I can only recall fragments of information). I then become anxious since I feel as if I have wasted my time and learned nothing. I don't know whether my problem is exacerbated by the fact that I do most of my reading via ebooks.
I just feel like I have an inability to retain ideas presented within books and then consider how such ideas integrate with other things I've read i.e. the bigger picture.
I've tried to gradually narrow down the memory load e.g. try to remember a chapter, a few pages, etc. but still find my memory issue inhibits my abilty to learn and "connect the dots" between things.
I've thought about starting a blog and have recently started to contribute more often to online discussion where I can. I can make simple statements in isolation, but generally struggle with constructing, larger multi-point opinion pieces.
Thanks for the tips.
Thanks, I'll check 'em out.
Monocle
Member
Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time.Thanks, but personally I would say I have a problem being concise, as countless people falling asleep to my posts my attest.
I can't point to any one book. Reading argumentative essays, taking part in public speaking, learning to express yourself under a time constraint are all very helpful. The most useful books I've ever read in my life have not been on rhetoric, but on thinking. Stuff like Thinking, Fast and Slow or Godel, Escher, Bach. Do a social science degree if you can afford to justify it, I guess? Rhetorically I like anything that takes the Socratic method--pin down clear definitions, don't let people wiggle, recognize how the arguments follow from the definitions, build slowly through asking more questions and teasing out more implications.
I'm not sure I believe people are good autodidacts when it comes to this stuff. I think doing is probably more valuable than learning, and doing in a venue where you have a good critic or teacher more valuable still. For me, the absolute most useful thing was learning how to public speak, especially in extemporaneous situations. If you can structure a speech off the top of your head, then you can structure an essay or an argument. Time pressure helps.
Don't worry, I have the same problem. Everyone has the same problem, and I have definitely experienced that whole "Damn, a I can't remember shit a month later after reading this book except the main idea". Some people solve that problem by thinking about, engaging with, and discussing the book during and after. That is a form of self-recall testing. And that is why they are remembering much better than the rest of us idiots.
I have taken a slightly different approach after reading that book. I really wanted to know American history, so I decided to read, ask questions while I am reading, and then later put those questions into Anki. I will then try to answer them, and if I get stuck I can look back at the notes or my book for help (key point is to make sure the knowledge is coming from your brain and not your notes). Then I obviously use Anki, answer the questions by saying it out-loud (I feel like I have always had particular issuse with this. I am not an extemporaneous speaker), and then check my answer by flipping to the other side of the 'flashcard' and seeing if I get enough right or not.
It is actually kinda fun, and I am definitely retaining a lot more information than I did previously.
entremet
Member
Toastmasters is a great resource for public speaking.
I agree with Stump's recommendation there. Thinking on your feet is helpful.
For memory, a good tip is to start reading syntopically. Syntopical reading is reading across a variety sources for a similar topic. It will help you develop broad recall on overarching themes.
It's covered in How To Read a Book. Yes that's the title and while it may seem elementary, reading beyond what we're taught in school is rarely instructed.
Here's a summary.
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/how-to-read-a-book/
I agree with Stump's recommendation there. Thinking on your feet is helpful.
For memory, a good tip is to start reading syntopically. Syntopical reading is reading across a variety sources for a similar topic. It will help you develop broad recall on overarching themes.
It's covered in How To Read a Book. Yes that's the title and while it may seem elementary, reading beyond what we're taught in school is rarely instructed.
Here's a summary.
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/how-to-read-a-book/
Monocle
Member
entremet
Member
Albert Einstein
entremet
Member
Work on developing your critical thinking skills: logic, reasoning, avoiding fallacies, research skills.
Understand the topic in great depth that you are engaging in. That includes the basic facts, the surrounding arguments on either side and your own analysis. If you don't know much about the topic at hand, shut up. I don't know shit about electrical engineering so I wouldn't pretend I am an expert.
Above all else though listen, be open minded, be aware of your own bias tendencies, verify what you read/hear, absorb verified information and grow mentally.
At 18 I was pretty ignorant. I went into college thinking I knew a lot and there was a couple moments that got me to step back and realize I didn't know as much as I thought. In particular a Public Policy class where I initially tried to argue America had the best healthcare in the world. It's what I grew up hearing and thought it would be an easy A to make the argument. How wrong I was when actually delving into it and getting owned by my debate partner. A couple events like that shook my worldview and it really humbled me.
For a few years I pretty much abstained from arguing anything I wasn't very highly versed in(which was very little) and I stayed on the sideline of a lot of things, absorbed the arguments being made, did my own research to decide what arguments had merit and which to avoid and began to grow my own opinions.
Also don't be afraid to seek out relatively trustworthy thinkers and go nuts reading them. Finding a barring in all the madness can be an anchoring point to grow individually.
EDIT: I'll also say this OP. If you like highly intelligent debate you are about 5-8 years late to GAF. PoliGaf topics with Empty Vessel, JayDubya and others were some of the most intellectually stimulating and challenging posts I ever got to witness. You really don't get that sort of diversity of opinion on GAF anymore and its a shame.
Understand the topic in great depth that you are engaging in. That includes the basic facts, the surrounding arguments on either side and your own analysis. If you don't know much about the topic at hand, shut up. I don't know shit about electrical engineering so I wouldn't pretend I am an expert.
Above all else though listen, be open minded, be aware of your own bias tendencies, verify what you read/hear, absorb verified information and grow mentally.
At 18 I was pretty ignorant. I went into college thinking I knew a lot and there was a couple moments that got me to step back and realize I didn't know as much as I thought. In particular a Public Policy class where I initially tried to argue America had the best healthcare in the world. It's what I grew up hearing and thought it would be an easy A to make the argument. How wrong I was when actually delving into it and getting owned by my debate partner. A couple events like that shook my worldview and it really humbled me.
For a few years I pretty much abstained from arguing anything I wasn't very highly versed in(which was very little) and I stayed on the sideline of a lot of things, absorbed the arguments being made, did my own research to decide what arguments had merit and which to avoid and began to grow my own opinions.
Also don't be afraid to seek out relatively trustworthy thinkers and go nuts reading them. Finding a barring in all the madness can be an anchoring point to grow individually.
EDIT: I'll also say this OP. If you like highly intelligent debate you are about 5-8 years late to GAF. PoliGaf topics with Empty Vessel, JayDubya and others were some of the most intellectually stimulating and challenging posts I ever got to witness. You really don't get that sort of diversity of opinion on GAF anymore and its a shame.
Opiate yeah but everyone else are pretty good too
that has to be a mod requirement; must be able to school lesser beings easily by writing long ass posts
every time I see someone just annihilate someone, I go "yup this person's gonna be a mod someday"
LOL
Yeah, OK. Look just because people here are great at word salad posts doesn't mean they know shit about anything.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
One thing I find interesting about postes who are great at debates or at forming a strong, concise statement is they usually get a lack of replies except for certain cases, like I believe john harker would come into a thread on gaming side with knowledge of what is going on in the industry the topic is based on, and shed some wisdom as he is actually apart of the industry and hardly anyone replies to him.
The Gaming Gamer
Member
Read about all the different cognitive biases and logic fallacies, and learn to recognize them and be aware of them in your own arguments. Understanding these cognitive biases of course means you have to acknowledge you will probably not be able to convince someone your side, they will be more intent on preserving their beliefs and winning the argument rather than learning, you can really only hope for creating some doubt in their mind.
Reading any scientific book will probably help in skepticism and critical thought. Writing and reading how other arguments are constructed will help in your expression. Here are some simple examples cognitive biases and logic fallacies, but you can also find complete lists on wikipedia and plenty of books on the topic:
http://www.cracked.com/article_1946...at-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p2.html
http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational
Reading any scientific book will probably help in skepticism and critical thought. Writing and reading how other arguments are constructed will help in your expression. Here are some simple examples cognitive biases and logic fallacies, but you can also find complete lists on wikipedia and plenty of books on the topic:
http://www.cracked.com/article_1946...at-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p2.html
http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Always google some random percentages to back you up.
Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
Start from humble beginnings. I myself, started (and consequentially ended) every argument with a simple NO U. As I got older, I found that people kept on adding words to the base NO U, until eventually it deciphered into a near incomprehensible argument with both sides boiling down to NO U.
From that basis, you garner confidence and a quick mind to use against people who differ their opinions from you. Then you take a subject you like, brush up on your knowledge of it, and find like-minded people to talk about with it. Eventually you'll find somebody who likes what you like, but in a different way. As such the inevitable debate of who's way to like something or think of something is correct/superior.
I myself like history. I enjoy debating history with other like minded fellows. One example that could follow is WW1. Somebody would say everybody who died in WW1 was a hero, I would disagree and say they were not heroes, but fools. I present my evidence and feelings for my side, they present theirs, and if there is mutual respect from both parties, you can generally find a compromise opinion. If not, it kind of delves into this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BXZB5OAtI
Ultimately, OP, so long as you stay true to your heart and your beliefs, you can't be a bad debater. People use quick retorts and long words in debates to try and dumbfound and baffle the opposition to try and win by proxy. But so long as what you say is true to who you are, and you always remember that, you cannot 'lose' a debate.
From that basis, you garner confidence and a quick mind to use against people who differ their opinions from you. Then you take a subject you like, brush up on your knowledge of it, and find like-minded people to talk about with it. Eventually you'll find somebody who likes what you like, but in a different way. As such the inevitable debate of who's way to like something or think of something is correct/superior.
I myself like history. I enjoy debating history with other like minded fellows. One example that could follow is WW1. Somebody would say everybody who died in WW1 was a hero, I would disagree and say they were not heroes, but fools. I present my evidence and feelings for my side, they present theirs, and if there is mutual respect from both parties, you can generally find a compromise opinion. If not, it kind of delves into this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BXZB5OAtI
Ultimately, OP, so long as you stay true to your heart and your beliefs, you can't be a bad debater. People use quick retorts and long words in debates to try and dumbfound and baffle the opposition to try and win by proxy. But so long as what you say is true to who you are, and you always remember that, you cannot 'lose' a debate.
Vermillion
Banned
You have to know a lot of shit or be able to wing it. So read a bunch.
Don't lose your temper. You will fuck up your flow, badly.
Speak simply so others can understand. You can be completely right and still fail at convincing anyone if you're unclear.
Be honest. There's no point in intellectual dishonesty, except to obfuscate meaningless internet debates. The more honest you are is the more convincing your argument will be.
Also: IDK how other people feel about it, but I really like How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence
Don't lose your temper. You will fuck up your flow, badly.
Speak simply so others can understand. You can be completely right and still fail at convincing anyone if you're unclear.
Be honest. There's no point in intellectual dishonesty, except to obfuscate meaningless internet debates. The more honest you are is the more convincing your argument will be.
Also: IDK how other people feel about it, but I really like How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
State something that you know can be verified with a source, provide said source, do not get irate, snarky, and/or passive aggressive even if the other side is absolutely hellbent on baiting and trolling.
so true. pisses me off
I remember this one exchange between Anihawk and some clown about the Wii and shit. Ani was just dropping tiny bits of his knowledge and the other dude was feeding off it. they'd quote each other and respond, that's good, right? eventually Ani dropped a nuclear bomb but nope, the other guy faded from the convo and started responding to someone else entirely. shit was so weak
Dice//
Banned
ScatheZombie
Member
This is quite surprising to me, actually. I find the exact opposite to be true. The amount of truly intelligent posters seems far and few between (I'm certainly not one of them). Most people are just Google-Fu masters regurgitating shit they read somewhere without having a clear grasp of what they are even arguing. And then half of the responses end up being lazy, knee-jerk, single line drive-bys or word salad, thesaurus explosions that ultimately say nothing of value but sound impressive.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Oh man, I knew that was going to be a link to academic debate and was gearing up to defend it, but... that is on another level that I'm not sure I'm ready for. Still...
The speech style the women were using is known as "spread," an academic debate tactic to read as much as you can as fast as you can to get as many arguments as possible in to the record that will require a response from your opponent. The hope is that the opponent will not have time to respond to one of the arguments in their speeches and at the end you can carry through that argument as a winner for your team (e.g. "We showed in the 2NC that the plan causes nuke war, they did not respond, carry that through and the Neg should win on that alone." (said in 2.8 seconds.))
It's an ugly style of speech that it's nearly incomprehensible when done right, those loud gasps for air you heard are pretty normal for spread. To be frank, those women were doing a pretty good job of making spread understandable, it the otherness of the style and the content of their arguments that makes it so, as another poster put it, "Wtf"
Best guess on the actual argument is that the Affirmative was arguing to further restrict presidential war powers due to the disproportionate effect of using those powers on minorities, the Negative (the two women) flipped the case, meaning they used the Aff's arguments to argue for maintaining the status quo. Out of context, I have no idea what the Aff was doing with the rapping though.
Chuck Norris
Banned
And where did you get this time machine?
ZackieChan
Member
I think it helps to be able to argue/defend both sides of the argument, as well.
Holy shit that video is awful. Is that really what debates have devolved into? That video has completely and utterly devalued and ruined the entire purpose of a debate. It's turned it into a contest of winning on technicalities over substance. Seriously wtf.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Making a coherent debate online is incredibly easy
I'd like some thoughts on how to be able to quickly translate thoughts into coherent arguments and points in real conversation. Frankly I feel a lot less intelligent than I am in situations where I need to converse because I can't quite put my thoughts into words in the way I'd like
I'd like some thoughts on how to be able to quickly translate thoughts into coherent arguments and points in real conversation. Frankly I feel a lot less intelligent than I am in situations where I need to converse because I can't quite put my thoughts into words in the way I'd like
Squirrel Killer
Member
The region I was in had "Lincoln-Douglas" debate, which unlike the policy debate linked above, was one-on-one over moral/ethic issues rather than policy issues and after each debate, you switched sides. I did it one year when I didn't have a partner and it was a bit of a mindfuck to go from arguing for euthanasia to against it several times over the course of a tournament, but I think it ended up being one of my life experiences that best prepared me for the real world and to see things from all sides.
- Status