What is "debate"? An FYI

Si modo

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2009
44,120
7,138
1,830
Fairfax, Virginia
Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.
 
Last edited:
Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.

Recommended for stickying. I'm going to need to read this more than once.
 
Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.

DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.
 
IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also. I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.

Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case. But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written; most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.
 
IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also. I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.

Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case. But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written; most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.

Exactly.
 
Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.

Recommended for stickying. I'm going to need to read this more than once.

Yes.
 
Can I just add.... your 'source' should be an academically sound one. Backing up your comments with links to notoriously biased sources makes the poster look less than a rational debater.
 
I would really like to see threads started require a source/link. This will cut down on "I heard/think" threads that leave nothing up for debate but attacking each other.

1: Link/source

2: The OP's thoughts/opinion

Trust me as this works wonders.
 
A message board debate, however, that is conducted as strictly formal debate, is about as interesting as watching paint dry. As well as about that much fun. Formal debate is far to pedantic and tedious to work well in this environment.

But all the points related to civil discussion, challenge, and rebuttal as Si Modo outlined are important and pertinent.

And unless the OP is a hypothetical, some kind of backup for the hypothesis or thesis is in good form.

It is also good form to not put a thesis out there that you are not willing to defend.

It is also important to understand that challenging your concept or opinion is NOT a personal insult or affront or attack.

Calling you crazy or referring to you as an idiot or worse IS a personal attack.
But saying that a stated concept is really looney tunes and here's why. . . is NOT a personal attack.

And the ability to admit when your opponent's information or argument is better than your own or calling it a draw with an agreement to disagree lets us put our big boy and girl pants on.
 
A message board debate, however, that is conducted as strictly formal debate, is about as interesting as watching paint dry. As well as about that much fun. Formal debate is far to pedantic and tedious to work well in this environment.

But all the points related to civil discussion, challenge, and rebuttal as Si Modo outlined are important and pertinent.

And unless the OP is a hypothetical, some kind of backup for the hypothesis or thesis is in good form.

It is also good form to not put a thesis out there that you are not willing to defend.

It is also important to understand that challenging your concept or opinion is NOT a personal insult or affront or attack.

Calling you crazy or referring to you as an idiot or worse IS a personal attack.
But saying that a stated concept is really looney tunes and here's why. . . is NOT a personal attack.

And the ability to admit when your opponent's information or argument is better than your own or calling it a draw with an agreement to disagree lets us put our big boy and girl pants on.
Yes, a formal debate would be absolutely boring. But, an actual debate without the formal rules would be refreshing to see, here.
 
Sadly, it's not going to happen. Multiple threads, and it's the same old same old, sans the name calling. People making outrageous claims (see the Romney thread) and providing absolutely NOTHING to support their ridiculous comments...and pretending that they are "debating".
 
I came from a forum where there are strict rules of behavior, even stricter than the rules being applied in this section. The rules applied to every section of the board.

The rationale was that it promoted civil debate.

The problem is that It didn't really accomplish much. Yes the debates were civil but no one's minds ever changed and no answers to problems were ever found.

Not that personal insults or unsourced info is going to do it either, but the difference is one way can be exciting and fun, the other tends to be boring.
 
It just blows my mind that people can so delude themselves when all the information is there, and they are provided the tools, and repeatedly prompted...Edited. Not Allowed Here. SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. It's not a complicated idea. If you're going to say something, then just provide the evidence that it is so. Don't say "Romney was crooked" (nobody said that) and then not say exactly how, provide the example, and link the evidence. This is BASIC stuff that I learned in high school composition class. As a FRESHMAN. And truthfully, we were expected to construct intelligent arguments well before that. I gave my first speech as a 5th grader, using quotes, stats, and a respectable collection of references.
 
Last edited:
But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.
 
No, you make your argument, and then support it with evidence, and then clearly point out how it supports your argument.

It doesn't matter. It's never going to get to that point.
 
Well we can amicably agree to disagree. Again, speaking as an old debate coach and judge, and having attempted formal debate on message boards in the past, this medium is simply not conducive to formal debate EXCEPT in a chat format where participants can stick around and see it through from beginning to end and nobody else participates.

So for lack of a better description, I call message board debate a structured 'conversation'. It is still debate with both sides giving their best argument for a concept and supporting it as necessary, but can be done in a much more informal manner and not require every member posting to know and follow the very strict rules of formal debate.

Example:
Me: While single parents can be great parents and do a great job,, single parenthood is neverthless the number one reason for children growing up in poverty in the USA.

You: I don't disagree with that.

In this conversation there is no need for any cut and paste or link to support it.

But if it goes:

You: I don't believe that. Can you support it?

Then, it would be incumbant upon me to find a credible source or sourcves to back it up.

And, if you still didn't want to agree with it, it would be incumbant upon you to find a credible source or sourves to refute it.

But EVERY expressed opinion doesn't need to be accompanied by a lot of cut and paste or links.
 

Forum List

Back
Top