Debating tactics

[starcock]

When people are debating on a topic and both strongly believe their own point for days but suddenly, one person did more research and was open minded to the other persons views so they say, hey, I change my mind about part of my issue but not the whole thing, you are right about this. The problem in doing this is that the other debator, uses your, admitting a part of your arguement was wrong and agreeing with piece of yours, as a weakness. Now they can destroy your arguement by saying, hey, look how you argued to death about your point for weeks but now changed it and see that I was right, you have no creds now, you were wrong now so I automatically dismiss your future arguements.

What other debating tactics have you all seen?

 

[Rici]

Yes, let's all stay close-minded and believe in only the things we think are right!

 

[starcock]

That is the point. You are right, we shouldn't do this but do people use this? Good debators also do this. It is one of many debating tactics, don't you agree? I have notice instead of argueing with the topic, they try to shut you down by making you use credibility without actually discussing any points.

 

[cuppiecakes]

Well one thing for sure what I've learned from the past...

If you start calling them names they'll just completely tune out your points xD Usually ends up in just tossing around names at eachother But its quite hard for me to refrain from name calling to an extremely close minded person :/ ehe. Just gotta back down I s'ppose, since I never really found any other way to 'stop' it.

 

[starcock]

The name calling tactic, the better debator will provoke you with insults that are not obvoius but implying that you are stupid as sh*t and then you will insult him/her with an actual name and there goes your credibility. It is better to be calm at all costs, you don't want people viewing as a cursing maniac, this makes the other person win by you destroying your own arguements.

 

[Creo]

Honestly, there's a very few debates I've actually enjoyed continuing with(although not here...). I don't mind if the 'back and forth' thing goes on as long as points are being made and there's no cussing or fussing.
But, I don't like it when one speaks like everything is a fact. Debating things on specific topics are not facted, which is why it's debated(though I do this myself sometimes).
The 'name-calling' aspect of debaters is just immature(sp?). Once it starts going to that, everyone gets angry, even more starts, and then the fact thing I had above comes into play even more.
The thing I really hate is being very repetitive. This is really where debates fall. It's the same reasoning over and over again, and that just gets annoying. Using stuff said before to counter-act something else is fine, but not(for the most part)quoting your whole back-up/reasoning all over again.

All in all, if I'm in a debate and things like this happen, I just leave until it gets calmed down, then try and keep it calmed. But, the reasons above are why I hate debating(considering debaters[for the most part]shouldn't be doing any of this in the first place)and don't go into it too much.
(hope this came out as I wanted it to...)

 

[starcock]

The thing is about the repetitvie points, is also, if the person you are debating with doesn't ever confront your points or "nit pick" pieces of your arguements(Address only things they find convient), it is only right to repost the samething. I hate when people qoute a sentence and ignore everything or when they try to debunk your claims, they talk about something that has nothing to do with anything you have said in the first place.

 

[Jellybelly]

If all else fails, insult there mother.

 

[Wak]

Debating is sometimes the art of modifying the truth to your advantage, which I mastered ages ago.

 

[Firebert]

Debating is sometimes the art of modifying the truth to your advantage, which I mastered ages ago.

That is pretty much the gist of it. And some people sadly believe that it is lying rather than a unique debating tactic.

 

[Darqhart]

I think the best tactic is to be prepared. Credibility is secondary to proof, and they often coincide when you have valid proof. Wikipedia is a great source of information for most things, always check the bibliography of the topic you are researching on Wikipedia. Don't heavily rely on Wikipedia, most sites have analysis reports if they are researching something. Use Google, find the sites of the related topic.

As long as you have a well thought out argument supported by valid information, and can prove the location of that information you will be gold. Insults are left for children that often use this debate tactic "If you can't disprove them, discredit them.".

I believe when personal insults come into play, the debate is over.

 

[starcock]

Good points. I wonder though, say there is a topic with 15 pages and you just came in, only read the first post or maybe the first page, then continued to reply to the topic at hand. the problem is, what you write in your response has been said multiple times on seperate pages. Do you lose cred? I mean, 15 pages of long arguements is alot to soak in, is it your fault you came into the debate late?

 

[Firebert]

Good points. I wonder though, say there is a topic with 15 pages and you just came in, only read the first post or maybe the first page, then continued to reply to the topic at hand. the problem is, what you write in your response has been said multiple times on seperate pages. Do you lose cred? I mean, 15 pages of long arguements is alot to soak in, is it your fault you came into the debate late?

I strongly believe that you should at least read the entire topic before posting in it, no matter how long the topic may be.

 

[pokemonmaster01]

I usually switch hands at some point.

 

[redgreenblue]

 

[Firebert]

I usually switch hands at some point.

I'll bet you do. =P

 

[starcock]

I strongly believe that you should at least read the entire topic before posting in it, no matter how long the topic may be.

Of course you have to read the entire topic that the original poster did but i am talking about everyone else in the thread that debated for weeks with essays. It is just not possible to read 15 pages every time you want to post in a new topic just to get everyones point. I suppose it is still good to read 3 pages from the start and 3 at the end, just to get the general idea on where the thread is headed.

 

[Zero Beat]

Only stick your nose if you know you're adequately informed with the topic at hand.

 

[starcock]

I didn't say if you don't know the topic, I am saying if you know the topic well from the original poster alone, not the next 15 pages of other members saying their opinions on the matter or whatever. I guess you sit there and read 50 pages of other people's arguments when you already have the knowledge of the topic from the original poster to counter it.

 

[Rici]

Change to 40 posts/page like all the cool members do and voila, your 15 page topic has just been reformed to a 4 page topic!


And yes, you need to read ALL the replies, including the long walls of text.

 

[Firebert]

Change to 40 posts/page like all the cool members do and voila, your 15 page topic has just been reformed to a 4 page topic!


And yes, you need to read ALL the replies, including the long walls of text.

True that. I am one of the people who use 40 posts/page, BTW.