Thread: Debating 101

Originally Posted by userque

The Art of Debate: Never Lose An Argument Again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LesGw274Kjo

In an effort to convince a "neutral third party" of something...

Do those even exist any more?

Originally Posted by RealMoneyIssues

In an effort to convince a "neutral third party" of something...

Do those even exist any more?

Theoretically.

Originally Posted by userque

Theoretically.

Like perfect trading systems!

Originally Posted by RealMoneyIssues

In an effort to convince a "neutral third party" of something...

Do those even exist any more?

That's debatable.

Prison vs. Harvard in an Unlikely Debate - WSJ

"Prison vs. Harvard in an Unlikely Debate"

Originally Posted by k0nkuzh0n

Prison vs. Harvard in an Unlikely Debate - WSJ

"Prison vs. Harvard in an Unlikely Debate"

Were the prisoners on stage left, or right?

Originally Posted by userque

Were the prisoners on stage left, or right?

Yes

i am fascinated by this idea of civil debate. i've never had any training but i think i am pretty good at spotting bullcrap.

one of the things that bothers me about debating with an idiot is that they are often unable to objectively assess an idea or proposal and instead take failure on their part plan or execute a proper defense as personally insulting when the other party starts knocking their argument's pecker in the dirt. it is usually at this point that they start insulting the winner's cat or questioning the ethnicity of someone's grandmother.

another thing that really irritates me is when some joker introduces an outlandish proposal, presents virtually no legitimate evidence to support it, and then abandons the debate when rebutted with clear and sound facts. i read up on this because it interests me and i think this is called the 'burden of rejoinder'. that is, the original arguing party is obligated to respond to each point raised in the course of the debate and by failing to do so concedes that issue, thereby losing the interaction. this is how the convicts won harvard in that video.

again, i am not a formal expert in this field but even so, i like to think of myself as a master debater.

Originally Posted by burrocrat

i am fascinated by this idea of civil debate. i've never had any training but i think i am pretty good at spotting bullcrap.

one of the things that bothers me about debating with an idiot is that they are often unable to objectively assess an idea or proposal and instead take failure on their part plan or execute a proper defense as personally insulting when the other party starts knocking their argument's pecker in the dirt. it is usually at this point that they start insulting the winner's cat or questioning the ethnicity of someone's grandmother.

Another issue I see here a lot is the failure to stay on point and the arguing of issues (ad nauseum) never raised.

Originally Posted by burrocrat

another thing that really irritates me is when some joker introduces an outlandish proposal, presents virtually no legitimate evidence to support it, and then abandons the debate when rebutted with clear and sound facts.

Perry Mason moments don't happen. Too much pride in most folks. The best you can do is to lock the person into their ridiculous argument for all to see and judge for themselves. And once all issues have been raised, there's no point in continuing anyway. They will either agree with you without admitting it; or everyone (the jury/judge) will see how silly they are. In this, greatness is not measured by how long you can meaninglessly go back and forth.

Originally Posted by burrocrat

i read up on this because it interests me and i think this is called the 'burden of rejoinder'. that is, the original arguing party is obligated to respond to each point raised in the course of the debate and by failing to do so concedes that issue, thereby losing the interaction. this is how the convicts won harvard in that video.

again, i am not a formal expert in this field but even so, i like to think of myself as a master debater.

I always figured you to be a masturbater.

I'll post links to some material you'd probably be interested in it soon.

I prefer the examination and cross-examination process. I believe that process might be essentially woven into the debating forum as well.

You'd probably like debate.org as well. You can witness the REAL DEAL there. Very formal.

I've (non-attorney) represented federal employees before Federal Administrative Judges for many years, and argued once before a (very cool) criminal courts judge (weapons charge...my client prevailed...the law students monitoring the court that day congratulated us on a case well litigated. The prosecutor's face turned cherry red.) She ruled in our favor, but didn't really want to return the weapon (knife). I advised the client to let it go.

I've read many books dealing with examination and cross. I use very little of that knowledge here. When I do, the guilty parties call you OCD or whine that you are dissecting their posts...uh....yeah. I'll eventually get around to reading some of the material I have regarding debating.

Originally Posted by userque

I always figured you to be a masturbater.

yes, it's true. i like to play with my talk.

Originally Posted by burrocrat

yes, it's true. i like to play with my talk.

My bad, missed that typo.