(Formal) Argument and Counter-argument

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Now i think about it, how do you practice debate really?

Such advice can't be given in isolation. It depends highly on the topic being discussed, and the arguments and counter-arguments presented by both sides.

It'll be more useful if you could give an outline of how your debate went. If there's a video recording of the proceedings, for example, it'll be great if you could share it so others can review what you did well or did not do well.

For reference, you could take a look at the debates on abortion and morality in this forum, which spanned across hundreds of posts and pages. Thankfully, both those threads are now closed, or the discussion would have kept on going in circles.

For a summary of everything that was discussed and debated on the abortion thread, follow this link.

This is also relevant:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/JTN9Nx8VYtk

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Jagger]

The thing with debates is that logic doesn't win. Unless you're doing the debate in a very strict setting. There are dozens of dirty tricks an opponent can use against you and the average viewer is too stupid to recognize logical fallacies when they show up. So by the end of the debate it wouldn't be unusual if most of the public believes the scumbag who's been using fallacies the whole time over the person who's been making rational arguments based on evidence.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Jagger

The thing with debates is that logic doesn't win. Unless you're doing the debate in a very strict setting. There are dozens of dirty tricks an opponent can use against you and the average viewer is too stupid to recognize logical fallacies when they show up. So by the end of the debate it wouldn't be unusual if most of the public believes the scumbag who's been using fallacies the whole time over the person who's been making rational arguments based on evidence.

Well, part of debating is making sure that the audience knows when the opponent is making fallacious arguments. If you let the opponent continue to make fallacious arguments unchallenged, then that's your own fault, not the audience.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by monster

Well, part of debating is making sure that the audience knows when the opponent is making fallacious arguments. If you let the opponent continue to make fallacious arguments unchallenged, then that's your own fault, not the audience.

As long as the topic is not politically/emotionally appealing.

[monster]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

As long as the topic is not politically/emotionally appealing.

I'd say those may be some of the most important topics to debate upon, but it's up to the debaters whether or not emotion would dictate the course of debate.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by monster

Well, part of debating is making sure that the audience knows when the opponent is making fallacious arguments. If you let the opponent continue to make fallacious arguments unchallenged, then that's your own fault, not the audience.

People weasle their way out with a change of subject and keep on using dishonest tactics. It doesn't matter how many times you point it out. Look up any debate on abortion, gay marriage, whatever, and you'll see the same bullshit fallacious arguments told over and over again, they don't give a shit about facts or fallacies. It's a waste of time.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Jagger

It's a waste of time.

Well, if you think that, then that's fine. But for people who think a particular topic is important enough to persuade others, such attitude is not productive.