Who are the winners in debates?

[otseng]

I just wanted to get this off my chest, so here goes....

Everybody would like to win in their debate, that is natural. But, sometimes people go too far in trying to win. They use condescension, ad hominem, and other unprincipled tactics. These to me are the losers in the debates, even if they have a strong case for their side.

To me, the winner of a debate is not the one who is able to slap the opponents the most. It is not the one who shouts the loudest. It is not one who demonstrates their own cleverness. It is not the one who takes the low road in debates.

The winner to me is one who demonstrates the most civility. Their argument might need refinement, but I appreciate civility over any other quality. It takes great skill to demonstrate civility in a hostile debate environment.

So far, I have only donated tokens out of my own purse to one person on this forum. This to me was a great example of being civil under attack.

He was challenged with the question:
"I'm curious to know how old you are, and what your enlistment plans are."

He replied back with:
"If the info will be used to attack me, and not the message, I can't oblige. If you are truly curious, PM me and I'll be happy to reply. "

I was so impressed with his response that I gave him 100 tokens on the spot for his reply.

So, who are the winners in debates? Those who are civil under fire.

[hannahjoy]

Everybody would like to win in their debate, that is natural. But, sometimes people go too far in trying to win. They use condescension, ad hominem, and other unprincipled tactics. These to me are the losers in the debates, even if they have a strong case for their side.

Just a suggestion - would it be possible to post a list somewhere of the common fallacies so that we could check our arguments against them? I remember learning a list of them in the past, but I don't know where it is now, and they can be easy to fall into.
I remember Latin names like "ad hominem", "non sequiter (sp?)," but I don't remember what they all meant.
Perhaps someone who's studied Logic could help us out?

Hannah Joy

[otseng]

Just a suggestion - would it be possible to post a list somewhere of the common fallacies so that we could check our arguments against them?

Here are two links:
Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies
SoYouWanna avoid common logical errors?

The links are also in the Debate Resources links.

[ST88]

I don't consider the person I'm debating to be my opponent in a debate, so I guess I don't really keep score as to who won what (most of the time). I feel my job as a debater is to present what I believe in and what I understand to be true in terms of what the other person says. If it's opposite, then that's where I am. Sometimes I will agree with a lot of what the other person says except for a few things, which I will point out. Who has the potential to "win" in that situation? But I guess I don't feel vindicated if they agree with me, or if anyone agrees with me. I just like to answer questions.

[perfessor]

So far, I have only donated tokens out of my own purse to one person on this forum. This to me was a great example of being civil under attack.

He was challenged with the question:
"I'm curious to know how old you are, and what your enlistment plans are."

He replied back with:
"If the info will be used to attack me, and not the message, I can't oblige. If you are truly curious, PM me and I'll be happy to reply. "

I was so impressed with his response that I gave him 100 tokens on the spot for his reply.

So, who are the winners in debates? Those who are civil under fire.

I remember this exchange - since I was the one asking the question. I, too, was impressed with the response - among other things, it provided a great education to me about the inappropriateness of my question.

I remember an old riddle I heard as a child - "If a wise man and a fool have a debate, which one learns most from the other?"

Here's something I've learned on this site - that as much as I might want to dash off a quick, scathing reply to an "opponent", it's better to sit on it for 24 hours, to make sure I understand not just the point he was trying to make, but his point of view as well. He becomes less of an opponent in the debate, and more of a partner. This style of mature debating is very much exemplified by Otseng and Jose, among others.

[Corvus]

I agree somewhat. Like ST88, often when I enter a debate I am simply stating a position. Other times - and here is where my enthusiasm swells greatly - I am debating against what I feel to be an illogical statement. The most recent example of such a thing is the God and Time thread. In these types of debates, I believe a person can prove themselves to be correct or have an explanation that better fits the data, and I would classify the person that adequately expresses the faultless integrity of their argument without resorting to incivility to be "the winner".

So far, I have only donated tokens out of my own purse to one person on this forum. This to me was a great example of being civil under attack.

There are three people to which I have donated tokens. All three exemplify the combination of skill in debating with laudable civility, and they are ST88, Crixius and Gaunt. Actually, it was Gaunt's serene participation in one particular thread that really caught my eye, even when being told numerous times how his father should throw him over the knee and beat some morality into him. I wonder where he has gotten to?

[Dilettante]

I appreciate civility too, and I am impressed with Otseng, ST88, Corvus and Jose. (BTW, I wonder if Jose speaks my mother tongue. Judging from his signature I'd say he does).

I like the attitude of people like Spinoza, who wrote:

... curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere;...( I have laboured carefully, not to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions)

I don't really care who wins a debate. I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said debates were an art form. The person who wins a debate may have better debating skills, but is not necessarily closer to the truth. The people I admire most are those who are real truth-seekers and are not afraid to examine different ideas. Someone who never changes his or her mind about important thinks can't be a critical thinker.

The best introduction to informal logic I know (in English) is With Good Reason by Morris S. Engel. A good book is also Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, because it not only helps you identify fallacies, but it also teaches you how to straighten your thinking and construct good arguments. It also has a section about debating ethically, which is nice.