Other how to have a respectful debate

[myfanwy]

disclaimer: this is my opinion. i've become a little frustrated that children people can't accept other's opinions on certain topics and will participate in rather unsavory tactics to try to sway another's opinion. this will also be in lapslock, sorry.

introduction:

after being burned on another thread in this subforum and after stalking other threads, i've come to notice something: if you want to have an opinion on something, you better get ready to hold fast to it because other people will use all sorts of tactics to try to get you to admit defeat. the thread that i posted on, something as simple as preferences when it came to writing, mine- along with several others- came under fire because we dared to state that we preferred one thing over another. lo and behold, people tried to change what we liked and, sadly, it got to be childish. i will admit i did lose my temper and left after a bit, however, that doesn't mean i can't post a thread on this. we need to learn how to be respectful towards one another when it comes to a difference in opinions.

here are some quick tips and tricks to remain respectful while debating someone in a thread that's all due to personal preference.​

try to see the other side

honestly, this is one of the more important things to keep in mind when engaging in a debate. if applied correctly it'll even end in the parties involved resolving the debate in a nice, neat, civil way (usually in the form of "i still disagree but i can see where you're coming from."). most people fall into this problem:

× i'm very intelligent and i believe in X
× the other person believes in Y
× therefore, the other person is a complete idiot and i must shout at them why they're wrong and i'm right.​

if you follow that set of rules, people are going to think that you're an asshat... and you probably are, actually, if you refuse to see that other people have different views than you. see, opinions are unique in the way that everyone has an opinion on something that you may agree with or you may disagree with. does that mean the other person is wrong? no. get off your high horse if you think you're correct all the time.

ask the right questions: don't instigate an argument by asking questions such as "how in the world do you believe that?" or "why do you not realize that you're so wrong and that there are bad things to the way you think about a personal preference issue?" still tilted haha could you tell? and instead use "what" questions. "what makes you think that?" or "what makes you feel that way?". if you purposefully antagonize the other side of the debate, you're just asking for them to get pissy and you can use the fake moral high ground you built to make yourself seem more rational and calm.

a high ground built off of lies, i say. anywho.

another thing we like to see is our side tearing into the other side. it's so easy to fall into the group mentality and pile onto other people when you have a group that all agrees with one another. it's very satisfying to see your side "tear into" the other, to expose the inaccuracies in the other argument, and in turn, the hypocrisy. it's hard to fight that way of thinking, but if you take a step back and try to see the other side, it's easy to stay civil.​

concede where/when appropriate

no matter what you think at the moment, there may come a point where the person you're debating comes up with a really good point- one you find yourself agreeing with. imagine that. now, with that scenario in mind, what would you do?

× say "hm, yeah, i never thought about it like that."
× say "wow how stupid are you that's dumb [10 paragraphs trying to disprove a point they agree with]"​

while the second option is an exaggeration, you would be very surprised at how many people would take that route. now, i'm not saying that everyone does, just a majority from what i've seen. it takes a strong man to admit defeat, but apparently it takes a stronger man to admit that the opposing side might have a good point. even if you don't feel the other side is completely right, you can add in a few "i can understand why you think/feel that way" and "i can see that"

of course, if you use it in a sarcastic manner, people are going to be upset with you still.

find common ground: if you stay civil the entire time, you might be able to create a new viewpoint with someone else if you just, you know, concede and admit that there are some flaws in the way you think. this has happened a few times when i've talked to someone and it even changed my viewpoint on post minimums. hmm, wow, that's amazing that the original person and i could talk it out without devolving into childish tactics. it's not impossible to see that the way you think might have flaws and you can make a stronger argument if you add more ways of thinking to it.​

don't use inflammatory language

this is, quite possibly, the most important section of this "guide". if you don't have facts to back yourself up with, or if you get irritated quickly, it's very easy to fall back on using hurtful or inflammatory language to rile up your opponent and prove that you're not the only one there losing your temper. this is a debate, after all, and it requires civility and keeping your emotions in check. the second you lose your temper and start throwing insults out is the second it turns into nothing more than a childish argument.

this is a short section, but not an unimportant one.​

don't use __________

...appeals to emotion: if you're taking cheap shots at someone and trying to guilt them into seeing your side, you're not really going to win. it's obvious and you should feel bad (see what i did there?).

...fallacies: there are many different types of fallacies out there, so i'm only going to list some of the more common ones with examples. the general idea of this subcategory is to hopefully make you more aware of the fallacies you might use in your debates.

strawman

according to wikipedia, a strawman argument is as follows

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."​

i like to call this one "putting words into people's mouths." you're taking the other person's argument and twisting it against them to make them seem more horrible than they are. this can happen if you don't read their side correctly, or if you're just being cheeky and hoping this gives you a leg up, and it shows that you can't create a detailed enough counterpoint to their view.​

argumentum de lapidem

"Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone."​

"i think that this point is correct for this reason."
"no it's not."
"why not?"
"it's just not."

it uh... speaks for itself, really.​

association fallacy

this one is actually funny because it's a very common one.

"i believe in [religion], but it's cool that you don't :^)"
"wow look at all of you [followers of religion], you're all the same trying to convert us into a CULT"

just because someone believes in something that you don't, that you're not a part of this group but they are, it means that the other person is part of a hive mind and has an evil agenda trying to convert you.​

argumentum de populum

this argument is a very lazy one as it basically boils down to "this point is wrong because even though i can't explain why you're wrong, i know a lot of people who think you're wrong." just because a lot of people think something is wrong or right, doesn't mean it is. like... lots of people thought slavery was a good idea and a small minority of people thought it was bad.

majority opinion doesn't mean it's correct.​

conclusion

all of this can be summed up as: don't be an asshole (or: don't be stupid, stupid). just because you think you're right doesn't necessarily mean you are or that the other person is a complete moron for holding fast to what they believe in. sometimes you have to agree to disagree and then walk away.

is that fun? no. is it "rewarding"? no.

however, if you stick to your guns and you know that by the end of the day you're still going to believe what you believe in, great. just don't expect other people to see eye to eye on it or even that they'll respect your opinion. there are different opinions everywhere and it's up to you whether or not you're going to engage with them and walk out with a new perspective.

-f i n-​

​

note: this is my opinion, you don't have to follow any of this advice, don't argue with anyone in the comments. point out anything incorrect in this and i'll fix it.​

​

 

[Darkraven]

This is priceless, but you know how the internet is like. There will be people like you who are learnt in the art of debates, conversation and forming arguments, and there will be people with the right mindset and willingness to learn. Then there will be people who just can't or won't. Then we have people who thinks that vulgarity and verbal manhandling is the way to go and those who don't think and write the way they do are literally the manifestation of everything that is wrong with humanity - I got called 'douch-ey' and pretentious for one just because I used a few words that isn't common enough just the other day. Admin had to step in, even.

It isn't that the world lacks reason, because nowadays it's everywhere, and for free. It's sad, but reality tends to be.

 

[Idea]

This is a wonderful project you set out to do here! The title is very fitting too- "respectful" is exactly the right word to describe your advise. I would say one still needs more to really debate well even in principle, but this is a great start.

The one thing I would object to is that, as I see it, trying to correct someone you think you're wrong- while of course being respectful to them and keeping yourself open to the possibility you are the one that is wrong- is actually the most respectful thing you can do about that person's opinion. That person's opinion is something that matters because it will affect their life and that person matters. So if you believe it is wrong of course you should try to make them see reason.

Really that's the whole point of arguing, improving the perception of reality of all party's involved, and hopefully, their lives with it.

 

[Lulidew]

I can totally relate with this thread. In the end, it comes down to how open-minded we are. Whenever we start a debate, we should keep our minds open to all possibilities, even if it opposes our original stand. That is because nothing is perfect, so there will always be advantages and disadvantages on both sides. If one were to ignore the disadvantages comepletely, then debating would just be pointless.

 

[Lightning and Sun]

www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com is a good tool.

 

[myfanwy]

i'm lazy to quote so i'm just gonna tag 6^6

Darkraven : i'm glad you find it funny, however, it is a good idea to have something like this online. despite it being the internet and there are idiots everywhere, if you want someone to take you seriously, it's always good to have a guide. i'm sorry you were called douchy, the people you were against probably tried to devolve the situation into an argument. you can agree with this thread or not, but it's not hurting anyone at this point in time.

Idea : thank you ^^ though honestly i was a bit disrespectful towards the readers at some bits because i'm a sarcastic bitch most of the time :') anywho, i agree with you, long story short. you have to keep yourself open to the possibility of gaining a new perspective on your opinion, even one you thought was incorrect at the time, while hoping that you can persuade someone to see your point of view.

Lulidew : exactly! i might steal that as the tl ; dr for the end of the main post, haha.

 

[Idea]

@Idea: thank you ^^ though honestly i was a bit disrespectful towards the readers at some bits because i'm a sarcastic bitch most of the time :') anywho, i agree with you, long story short. you have to keep yourself open to the possibility of gaining a new perspective on your opinion, even one you thought was incorrect at the time, while hoping that you can persuade someone to see your point of view.

Ah , don't worry, I know a thing or two about being sarcastic when trying to give advise.

 

[Darkraven]

i'm lazy to quote so i'm just gonna tag 6^6

Darkraven : i'm glad you find it funny, however, it is a good idea to have something like this online. despite it being the internet and there are idiots everywhere, if you want someone to take you seriously, it's always good to have a guide. i'm sorry you were called douchy, the people you were against probably tried to devolve the situation into an argument. you can agree with this thread or not, but it's not hurting anyone at this point in time.

I don't find it funny. Where did you get that idea from? By priceless, I meant that your article is a valuable resource.

 

[myfanwy]

I don't find it funny. Where did you get that idea from? By priceless, I meant that your article is a valuable resource.

oh whoops i'm sorry i totally misread your first message in a sarcastic tone and i got somewhat titled.

forget what i said in the first post and let me just dig a hole real quick.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Interesting topic. I can understand your frustration.

oh whoops i'm sorry i totally misread your first message in a sarcastic tone and i got somewhat titled.

Just wanted to add that this is the main reason many debates devolve into personal attacks. Communication and properly conveying one's message or intended meaning is a difficult skill to master. Most don't have it down perfectly...and even if they do, they still make mistakes. It's easy for current mood, experiences, and other factors to color how we read/interpret things. Perhaps a person explains things in perfect logic and high vocabulary might sound condescending to a reader who isn't as talented in that regard. That'll color how they perceive the message's tone. Conversation is a two way street, and unlike verbal communication, tone can't really be heard in written communication. I'm not great at telling when people are sarcastic to me online or not for example. It's up to both parties to do their best to convey their intended message effectively without somehow having the other party feel attacked...which is usually where the insults begin. Most people don't start throwing them out without having felt attacked in some way. Of course, that's not counting trolls, people who like hurting others, and all other manner of peoples you might find online^^

Certain fallacies are used in persuasive writing, which is actually a common tool in debates. Appeal to emotion for example. The people debating against post minimums, for example, might've been more convincing in their argument if they stuck to the emotional drawbacks of a post minimum instead of going the logical route and trying to argue that flowery isn't good. Because there are certain truths their side of the argument as well. There are players that feel scared of post minimums. Using examples and experiences will highlight their point better, and be more convincing, rather than try to explain why their point is logically true...because emotions and experiences plays a part in how someone reasons something out. People think differently, which skews logic, and an entirely logical world is pretty dull anyway (why would anyone argue if everyone is logical?). As for the reason fallacies are used...people want to win. To prove the other wrong. That's the difference between a debate (which is a form of competition) and discussion (where people are simply trying to understand each other's views). Bringing up preference is actually counterproductive to logical debating/arguing.

Example:
Person 1: "I don't like this. Here's why."
Person2: "Well I do. This is my preference. I just like it better. Please don't try to change my opinion."
Person 1: "...okay..."

There's no real point in arguing against another's preference.

Effective communication has a purpose. Are they simply trying to make their thoughts clear/known? Are they trying to convince the other of something? Are they simply chatting? Because, if they aren't trying to argue particular point, they aren't really debating. A person who already has a solid view won't be swayed...and people entering debates should be prepared to have their views broken down and smashed apart by other parties that want to prove they are right. A discussion is nicer. In that case, everyone is just sharing their thoughts without questioning anyone else's opinion and I think that's what you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong).

Though I will agree with you that no matter which form of communication, debate or discussion, it'd be good if everyone remembered there are real people with real feelings behind the screen. Respect is important. Insults and name-calling don't really improve anyone's argument either. If anything it weakens it...and it just sounds defensive...since a person who chooses to go that route is most likely losing ground in the debate (hence the claws).

 

[Kylesar1]

Respectful debates heavily depend on the people involved. At some point, feelings will get involved if any kind of insult is involved, whether they're talking about the person's points or the person themselves.

I say in general you should avoid subjective subjects. Most of what OP wrote pertains mostly to that.

Back up those facts and don't write anything you can't back up

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Respectful debates heavily depend on the people involved. At some point, feelings will get involved if any kind of insult is involved, whether they're talking about the person's points or the person themselves.

I say in general you should avoid subjective subjects. Most of what OP wrote pertains mostly to that.

Back up those facts and don't write anything you can't back up

Most of the debate topics I've encountered are subjective though.

Like whether we should have uniforms in school or not =P

If it had a clear, logical answer there wouldn't be a point a debate in the first place. I think feelings do have a place in a debate. Just so long as they are expressed respectfully. Also attacking the idea is different from attacking the person. Some people have a hard time separating that...which is what leads to uncivilized debates. A person who enjoys debates won't take idea-attacks personally.

 

[myfanwy]

i'll respond in full later, but i did want to mention that i read it wrong mainly due to the fact that my county uses the word "priceless" in a very negative light so yeee.

10/10 interesting topics to respond to when i get home

 

[QuirkyAngel]

i'll respond in full later, but i did want to mention that i read it wrong mainly due to the fact that my county uses the word "priceless" in a very negative light so yeee.

10/10 interesting topics to respond to when i get home

Only meant to say that misreading is very common occurance and a large reason people start resorting to personal attacks. The fact that you realized that you misinterpreted and quickly moved to apologize already says alot about your communication skills and your effort to keep things civil^^

 

[Kylesar1]

Most of the debate topics I've encountered are subjective though.

Like whether we should have uniforms in school or not =P

If it had a clear, logical answer there wouldn't be a point a debate in the first place. I think feelings do have a place in a debate. Just so long as they are expressed respectfully. Also attacking the idea is different from attacking the person. Some people have a hard time separating that...which is what leads to uncivilized debates. A person who enjoys debates won't take idea-attacks personally.

Whether or not to have uniforms can be backed up with proven facts and statistics to its benefit or its harm. An argument about Mario Kart 64 is better than Diddy Kong racing.........not so much, as there's not many points to discuss other than sales figures. Everything else is personal opinion and PURELY so

I think feelings have no point in a debate. That's where Appeal to Emotion stems from, as well as things like Moral High Ground. Someone's emotions have no effect on the validity of supporting statements and facts. If anything, I feel that it censors the things that you would say otherwise

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Whether or not to have uniforms can be backed up with proven facts and statistics to its benefit or its harm. An argument about Mario Kart 64 is better than Diddy Kong racing.........not so much, as there's not many points to discuss other than sales figures. Everything else is personal opinion and PURELY so

I think feelings have no point in a debate. That's where Appeal to Emotion stems from, as well as things like Moral High Ground. Someone's emotions have no effect on the validity of supporting statements and facts. If anything, I feel that it censors the things that you would say otherwise

lol, I guess I won't be seeing you in a debate about Mario Kart 64 vs Diddy Kong racing then~ (I've never played either of them so you probably wouldn't see me there either =P)

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I feel that using emotional examples and anecdotes can sometimes be very useful in clarifying a point, and even support debate arguments when data is hard to be found. A speaker describing a tragic tale about a child being bullied for wearing ugly uniforms can sometimes be more persuasive than a speaker listing cold hard data pulled from the internet. Not quite sure where you'll find statistics to prove that wearing uniforms can be bad...but I'll take your word for it. A debate isn't necessarily about finding out who's right or wrong since many debate topics are controversial. It's about who's the better arguer. Who made their point clearer? Who managed to persuade the audience?

I say fallacies are the tools of a debater, but in reality, they're pretty much a double-edged sword. While they appeal to the audience, they also open a hole in your argument. If you're up against a seasoned debater, using a fallacy is like shooting yourself in the foot. It leaves a hole for the opponent to exploit, to break down your argument...and trust me, it'll be exploited. Formal debates can be pretty vicious (while being respectful of course^^). Also, having stats and proven facts to back an argument doesn't prevent fallacies. Take for example, someone found data that 90% of rps on rpnation that die really quickly are detailed. They use that to back the claim that details kill rps. That's obviously a fallacy, because it makes many assumptions. Data is just numbers. And numbers doesn't make fact (since the majority always being right is fallacy)

Interestingly, the only stance that debaters against global warming have is that correlation does not equal causation and that debaters for global warming are committing a fallacy by claiming that their data means global warming exist

Oh, and just to clarify, when I speak of emotional appeals, I'm talking about the ones used for argument. Not someone breaking into tears and thinking that'll get the audience to side with them. Advertisers and salesmen will use all sorts of fallacies in their arguments to get you to buy their stuff. It's not really illegal or anything, but it's easy to break them down if you know where to look.