Why We Suck at Debate (And How to Do It Better)

[jross]

We are awful at debate and can do better.  What is missing?  Discuss.

Maybe someone will listen

• Listen Actively - Understand your opponent’s arguments fully before responding.
• Stay on Topic - Address the core issue without diverting to unrelated points.
• Use Evidence - Support your claims with facts, data, or credible sources.
• Be Clear and Concise - Present your arguments logically and avoid unnecessary complexity.
• Respect Opponents - Avoid personal attacks and maintain a civil tone.
• Acknowledge Strong Points - Concede valid points from your opponent to build credibility.
• Ask Clarifying Questions - Seek to understand your opponent’s position to engage more effectively.
• Stay Calm - Keep emotions in check to maintain focus and clarity.
• Address Counterarguments - Anticipate and respond to opposing views thoughtfully.
• Be Prepared - Research your topic thoroughly to argue confidently and accurately.

How to tank the debate

• Taking words out of context - Misrepresenting an opponent’s point by quoting them selectively.
• Putting words in someone’s mouth - Attributing statements or views to an opponent they didn’t express.
• Changing the subject - Shifting focus to avoid addressing the core argument.
• Ad hominem attacks - Attacking an opponent’s character instead of their arguments.
• Strawman arguments - Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.
• Ignoring evidence - Dismissing or refusing to engage with facts that contradict your position.
• Overgeneralizing - Making broad claims that lack nuance or evidence.
• Appealing to emotions over logic - Relying on emotional manipulation instead of reasoned arguments.
• Failing to listen - Not addressing or understanding the opponent’s actual points.
• Being unprepared - Lacking evidence or clear reasoning to support your position.

 

[Tripnsweep]

Charlie Kirk's last words were a sarcastic response in order to deflect from a serious question. So kind of tells you where he stood on debating anyone seriously. 

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Charlie Kirk's last words were a sarcastic response in order to deflect from a serious question. So kind of tells you where he stood on debating anyone seriously. 

How so?

[JimmySpeaks]

Charlie Kirk’s  last words were interpreted as a sarcastic response in order to deflect from a serious question.  So it kinda of tells you how one side sees things only from their own perspective without honoring what his true intent of the comment was. 

[jross]

This is not really a debate example per se but it cherry picks words without giving context and then criticizes it.  It demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and is a symptom of straw manning.  

Quote

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"-Charlie Kirk

Kind of ironic - @braves121

 

See also @Tripnsweep with similar quotes.

Quote

Kind of ironic, somebody who trivializes and downplays gun violence, ends up getting shot like that. Sorry Charlie, it's just necessary to keep the 2nd amendment. 

 

You can watch the video ... read a transcript...

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911023224/https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we

Quote

 

CHARLIE KIRK (TPUSA PRESIDENT): The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you-- wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that. Well, then you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by jross

[Tripnsweep]

He was asked if he knew how many mass shooters in this country over the past ten years were transgender. His response? "Too many." The answer was 5, which he was immediately informed. It's not a serious answer and shows his lack of seriousness in debating. It was an answer he gave that was grounded in any kind of facts. It was designed to be a purposefully hyperbolic or theatrical answer rather than a serious one. 

Then he was asked if he knew how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years. His response? "Counting or not counting gang violence?"

It's deflecting from a serious question, and even though he acknowledged the question, but he adds a qualifier that undermines giving a straightforward answer. It's a disingenuous way of answering what should be a relatively simple answer. He isn't seriously engaging, it sounds more like a rhetorical performance to create a sound byte that sounds good. 

[JimmySpeaks]

His answer was perfect because one is too many.  Anyone with a clue knows that.  He should have said trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters. 

[Tripnsweep]

Smooth brain little Jimmy just begging for attention. You should be on your way to school to learn what 2+2 is. 

[jross]

19 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

He was asked if he knew how many mass shooters in this country over the past ten years were transgender. His response? "Too many." The answer was 5, which he was immediately informed. It's not a serious answer and shows his lack of seriousness in debating. It was an answer he gave that was grounded in any kind of facts. It was designed to be a purposefully hyperbolic or theatrical answer rather than a serious one. 

Then he was asked if he knew how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years. His response? "Counting or not counting gang violence?"

It's deflecting from a serious question, and even though he acknowledged the question, but he adds a qualifier that undermines giving a straightforward answer. It's a disingenuous way of answering what should be a relatively simple answer. He isn't seriously engaging, it sounds more like a rhetorical performance to create a sound byte that sounds good. 

5 is TOO MANY, wouldn't you agree?  Are not any amount of school/church shootings too many?  What is the context around the question in which "too many" is an inappropriate answer?  I have not looked into the context.

Without specific context, which I haven’t researched, gang-related mass shootings are far more  more widespread and urgent issue than school or church shootings.  People keep talking about banning AKs while ignoring the need to address (stolen) hand guns used to commit thousands of murders, including a much higher total of kids.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by jross

[JimmySpeaks]

Jimmy knows that one mass shoring is too many and no where near being a sarcastic response.  It’s a fact.  

[reversaloffortune]

Y'all think an online forum is a debate? 

[JimmySpeaks]

 Rumor has it nobody currently in America will pick our cherries for us.   It must be why we need unlawful families here do so it for us. 

Edited 7 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[Tripnsweep]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

5 is TOO MANY, wouldn't you agree?  Are not any amount of school/church shootings too many?  What is the context around the question in which "too many" is an inappropriate answer?  I have not looked into the context.

Without specific context, which I haven’t researched, it is an intelligent point. Gang-related mass shootings are far more frequent than school or church shootings.  It is more widespread and urgent issue than school or church shootings.  People keep talking about banning AKs while ignoring the need to address (stolen) hand guns used to commit thousands of murders, including a much higher total of kids.

 

And that is why he gave that answer, because he didn't want to actually address the issue. Instead he wanted to deflect and bring the "debate" into a place where he can dictate the narrative and direction. Yes one mass shooting is too many, but when you blame a small percentage of people disproportionately, or imply it's a more serious problem, then you are veering away from the original question and bringing it to a place where you can complain about transgender people. 

[JimmySpeaks]

It’s no different when libs say violent crime rates are dropping in Chicago while ignoring the fact that it was only 10 shootings this past weekend instead of 11. See cherry picking without addressing the issue. 

Edited 7 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

10 minutes ago, reversaloffortune said:

Y'all think an online forum is a debate? 

Do you?

[jross]

5 minutes ago, reversaloffortune said:

Y'all think an online forum is a debate? 

An open discussion still warrants good habits. You are both correct and pedantic.

[reversaloffortune]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Do you?

No. Most forums are an echo chamber.

[ThreePointTakedown]

5 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

His answer was perfect because one is too many.  Anyone with a clue knows that.  He should have said trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters. 

Not trying to assume your intentions but what is your reason for bringing up the point(perhaps not a fact just yet) but the point that 'trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters'? 

If it was just to make the point, firstly where is your information coming from that makes that claim true and secondly, if it is true what point are you trying to make by announcing that fact? 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, reversaloffortune said:

No. Most forums are an echo chamber.

So you consider this place an echo chamber? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Thought stopper

That's what I think the 'too many' comment was meant for. That's what CK was great at and many others on the right. They don't have the burden of facts so they figure out how to shut down a conversation and without being proven wrong, they can dance around as the winner. 

 

'Too many' assumes there any. If CK didn't know how many there were and they didn't, then the answer should've been 'I don't know'. But that phrase is demonized on that side. Not having the conviction of a solid answer is looked upon as weakness. Watch any conservative that tries to make an outrageous point. Once confronted by the facts that they are wrong can they ever admit it? Never. 

 

Because they are looked down upon for admitting to anything that could be considered weak. Forcing them to move the goal posts. Obfuscate. Or claim, 'out of context'. You can set your watch by it. It's not coincidental that many of them grew up in faith. The one thing that faith cannot survive once exposed is doubt. Be it right or wrong, the opinion must be absolute regardless. Clinging to the veracity of the claim as true with all their hope and strength. It's not happenstance that these same people are drawn to strong men with strong opinions that twist and bend but never admit their error. Because they were raised to believe that these people are the holders of truth and cannot be questioned.  

[JimmySpeaks]

AI at is finest bahahhahaahhahahaha

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Not trying to assume your intentions but what is your reason for bringing up the point(perhaps not a fact just yet) but the point that 'trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters'? 

If it was just to make the point, firstly where is your information coming from that makes that claim true and secondly, if it is true what point are you trying to make by announcing that fact? 

I believe you’ve got a few questions from me that went unanswered from our last discussion.  I’ll get on this one when those have all been taken care of. 

[jross]

"That was actually the best point somebody made..."

 

[jross]

57 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Thought stopper

That's what I think the 'too many' comment was meant for. That's what CK was great at and many others on the right. They don't have the burden of facts so they figure out how to shut down a conversation and without being proven wrong, they can dance around as the winner. 

 

'Too many' assumes there any. If CK didn't know how many there were and they didn't, then the answer should've been 'I don't know'. But that phrase is demonized on that side. Not having the conviction of a solid answer is looked upon as weakness. Watch any conservative that tries to make an outrageous point. Once confronted by the facts that they are wrong can they ever admit it? Never. 

 

Because they are looked down upon for admitting to anything that could be considered weak. Forcing them to move the goal posts. Obfuscate. Or claim, 'out of context'. You can set your watch by it. It's not coincidental that many of them grew up in faith. The one thing that faith cannot survive once exposed is doubt. Be it right or wrong, the opinion must be absolute regardless. Clinging to the veracity of the claim as true with all their hope and strength. It's not happenstance that these same people are drawn to strong men with strong opinions that twist and bend but never admit their error. Because they were raised to believe that these people are the holders of truth and cannot be questioned.  

Are you talking about CK or all conservatives?  

CK was very intelligent.  He leveraged data all the time; often correct and often wrong.  I'll grant you that he is not known for admitting his mistakes and sources after the fact.

The claim about context is important because its relevancy to honest arguments.

The claim about clinging to veracity of claims and not admitting their error is a human condition rather than conservative condition.  There are so many instances of people being proven wrong with data and nothing comes beyond insults, strawmen, and silence.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I believe you’ve got a few questions from me that went unanswered from our last discussion.  I’ll get on this one when those have all been taken care of. 

I’ll happily answer them if you repost them to this thread. I can’t remember where it was we last discussed a topic. 
in the mean time it seems like you feel I have ill intent with my questions. 
I hope you take this as an honest effort to satisfy your request.