How can one win a debate? Debate strategies

[noname223]

I would like to have an answer from @DarkRange55

I try to be good at debates. And I am ruminating often about pros and cons of my positions. I think I am a good debater. I think I somewhat convinced my dad away from his right wing populist positions. I doubt he will change them in the longrun though.

I am good in the battle of narratives. However, I think most arguments are shallow if you cannot provide empirical evidence and statistics for your arguments. And I suck in that. I only go by what sounds logic and where arguments might contradict themselves. However, with statistics you can prove where this logic actually holds. Ofen intuition is wrong. Something that might sounds logical must not hold under scrutiny.

I am pretty good at ruminating. Actually I am doing excessive ruminating. And this is why I often try to anticipate replies of my opponents.
My self-help group sometimes resembles a debate club. I think we (also me) sucks us off too often for our intelligence. We mostly talk about stuff that we do not study actually. And I "know" a lot of information from popular science from media. I feel like a fraud almost all the time.

Do you have good advices for winning debates?

 

[Pluto]

 

[Forever Sleep]

Like you say- be knowledgeable. Having facts, statistics, quotes always makes someone sound like they know what they're talking about at least. I expect the delivery of it all is important too. People like Spehen Fry, Christopher Hitchens and Ricky Gervais are fascinating to watch and listen to because they make it entertaining. They are confident and use humour and charm to put across a point. Plus, they really listen to questions put to them.

I also think, not being too rigid is kind of important too. Showing that you can view it from other perspectives but you know why you hold with your own beliefs.

 

[pyx]

also curious to know how i can personally improve

the problem that i have with debate is that i am seemingly unable to generate sufficient responses to a given argument. it's very difficult to deconstruct an argument when you're limited to information which possesses surface-level availability. in order to amend this, we substitute our lack of primary knowledge for secondary knowledge i.e resemblances or experiences, which is equivalent to saying that we can try to think of similar conditions in which our past positions have obtained a preferred outcome, partly, perhaps, due to the use of debating tactics which ground our judgements in a codified form. i can make use of an armada of logical tricks in order to deceive my opponent and, hopefully, arrive at a comfortable position in which i can argue using what it is most readily available to me. this is probably what i would formerly call strawmanning

i prefer to argue in a written form. debating in itself is a skill, much like anything else. we can learn paths to victory through muscle memory. exposure to many forms of argument and their refutations won't ensure that you will win in all cases, since the real testament to your ability is how you can apply that knowledge is concrete scenarios to draw a desired outcome

my brain is essentially clouded all hours of the day, so i naturally make many blunders in verbal discourse. what annoys me is that i can think of a perfectly good counterargument or error in my opponent's judgement, but only if i have contemplated it deeply enough. debate isn't about who is right, but who sounds the most correct to an independent observer

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Definitely study logical fallacies and be aware of your cognitive biases.

I think of myself as a pretty good debater as well, my logic isn't perfect but it's certainly better than the average person.

 

[avoid]

I often keep this in mind when I enter a debate.

• Familiarize yourself with this list of fallacies [wiki]. And more difficult a task, learn to recognize these fallacies in debates.
• Don't enter a debate without doing your research (e.g. reading scientific papers). Or at the very least, you should be confident about your knowledge on the topic and be able to back up what you say.
• Don't argue to change your opponent's mind. Argue to learn about the opponent's view in order to create/improve your own balanced view on the topic. Or alternatively, if there's an audience capable of critical thinking, to let your arguments help them reason to their own conclusion.
• Be ready to agree to disagree if you really can't see eye to eye. Debates are about broadening your mind, not winning.
• If you suspect your opponent of speaking falsehoods then don't outright say he's wrong. Instead, ask him to elaborate on why and how he reasons something, and ask follow-up questions. Either you'll learn something new, or your opponent will (ideally) trip up.
• If you have the time and means, verify everything your opponent says, especially facts and statistics. Better to debunk a falsehood now than to let your opponent build his subsequent arguments on a falsehood.
• Don't be afraid to change your opinion or to admit your opponent is correct. It's perfectly normal to change your mind if new evidence is presented or sound logic/arguments convince you. As said, it's not about winning.
• Stay on topic. Don't let your opponent hastely change the topic without concluding it.
• Understand your opponent's train of thought: how did he come to this conclusion based on this data? Then be specific about in which part you disagree by sharing your train of thought (not just the conclusion).
• Be comfortable just spectating a debate. If need be, you can supplement either one's case without necessarily picking a side. This allows you to stick to your expertises.