• Welcome to ForumKorner!
    Join today and become a part of the community.

Debate 101

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
Thanks to @Michael for the help with this thread.

Debate 101

A debate is an academic contest of argumentation between two individuals and/or teams. Debating is an essential tool for the maintaining simplified development and democracy against open groups and societies. More than a verbal or a conduct asset, debating exemplifies the ethics of reasonable disagreement, resilience for contradictory points of view and meticulous self-review. Debating is, above all, a way for those who hold antagonistic views to deliberate controversial affairs without lowering to an insult, verbal abuse, emotional plea, or particular intolerance. A primary impression of debating is that it infrequently ends in compliance from both parties.




Evidence

This may seem like common sense to most members, but there are an extremely high amount of threads and replies without evidence. You must supply proof for any claim that you make. Otherwise, your claim can be dismissed altogether. Proof and/or evidence is the most important part of any argument. Without it, your argument holds no ground.

You must cite your sources whenever you provide evidence or a quote. Remember to use credible sources to find your evidence. Citing credible sources will make your argument much more professional and trustworthy.

Let's get into an example.

For this case, someone is trying to argue about evolution. They state to me that evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview. I reply with the following.

Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness. The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics. Creationists have nothing similar.

Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

SOURCE

Note how I included my source. This gives my opponent a direct way to view what I am looking at, and also see where I'm getting my evidence from.




Proofreading

Always, always, always proofread for errors, fallacies, illogic, missing sources, etc. A short read-through of your thread and/or reply will save you time and effort when having to respond to claims about your thread. Make sure all of your sources are listed and that you aren't using fallacious arguments when debating. These errors can be easily spotted by your opponent and will be quickly turned against you.




Length

A good thread will be quite lengthy and full of information. Rather than simply making a claim, be more articulate. Include some background on the topic, introduce the premises, state your argument, and include evidence and information that help to support you argument. It is always harder for your opponent to refute an argument when you have included lots of support details and evidence.

Do not put random filler into your thread to make it look good. Make sure that the thread is full of useful information, rather than filler.




Logical Fallacies

What is a fallacy? A fallacy is incoherent, incorrect, or unsound logic used in an attempt to win a debate. These fallacies, there is quite a long list of them, render your argument as invalid. You must avoid this type of argument at all costs.

Listed below are a few of the most common fallacies. To view an entire list, click here or here.


Ad Hominem

This fallacy involves an evasion from the actual topic whilst attacking your opponent directly. To be successful in a debate, you must attack your opponent's argument, and not your opponent themselves. Let's take a look at an example.

For this case, a gay man is debating his opponent on evolution. He presents evidence for his case. The opponent's rebuttal includes...

Why should we be listening to this man? He is gay! He doesn't know what he is talking about.

As you can see, there is no real argument behind this fallacy, rather an evasion of the argument altogether.


Slippery Slope

This argument evades the actual argument at hand it shifts the argument to hypotheticals. It would sound something like this. "You said that if we allow A to happen, then B will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen." No proof is provided that this will actually be the case. It is an argument that appeals to emotion, it mongers fear. Here's an example.

If we allow evolution to be taught, people will begin to think that they're monkeys! They will start acting like monkeys, climbing trees, flinging their feces, etc.

It's quite obvious as to why this shouldn't be accepted as logic.


Personal Incredulity

This is literally an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, someone argues that because they don't understand something or how something works, it is more than likely not true. For a debate, you obviously must be informed on the subject in order to argue your position. This argument stems from the lack of knowledge on a subject.

Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.


Burden of Proof

The burden of proof always lies with the person making a claim. Whether or not they can prove it does not matter. If you make a claim, you must support it with proof. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim and asks someone else to disprove it, without providing any evidence.

Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

This fallacy is quite often used ironically to point out illogic in certain arguments.




Recap

This is a recap of all the points covered in today's thread.

  • Make your thread lengthy and informational
  • Always include sources
  • Point out fallacies in your opponent's argument
  • Always retain quality, even if you're reposinding to a low quality argument
  • Always proofread
 

Michael

Member
Reputation
1
This thread will definitely help members learn how to debate and what debating is! Glad I could help!
 

Mojo

User is banned.
Reputation
0
@JohnnyG had an extremely long list of logical fallacies I believe. Nonetheless, this is a great thread. This thread will definately help users become more comfortable with with section.
 

Sector

Power member.
Reputation
0
With "lengthiness," make sure to rid of obvious padding. A number of members do this in attempt to seem more intellectual.
 

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
Sector said:
With "lengthiness," make sure to rid of obvious padding. A number of members do this in attempt to seem more intellectual.

I will update the thread to say that. Thanks for the input.
 

Astro

User is banned.
Reputation
0
A well constructed thread Leader (was about to say Jason), and Michael.

I can especially relate to the post padding that Sector mentioned, I see it all the time and it makes me cringe.
 

Solar

Power member.
Reputation
0
You both did an amazing job with this thread, @Leader and @"Michael". I really enjoyed reading it.
 

Michael

Member
Reputation
1
Solar said:
You both did an amazing job with this thread, @Leader and @"Michael". I really enjoyed reading it.

I'm pleased to hear you like it! Leader did most of it, so he should receive most credit.
 

JohnnyG

Active Member
Reputation
0
Thanks for this thread but my logical fallacies thread > this thread. ;)
 

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
JohnnyG said:
Thanks for this thread but my logical fallacies thread > this thread. ;)

This thread includes more than just fallacies. Debate is a lot more than knowing fallacies.
 

Beats

Power member.
Reputation
0
@Leader I would have to say that I couldn't agree with you more.
 

Cicero

Onyx user!
Reputation
0
I think it would have been much more efficient to just C&P Apathy's thread from H-F. He probably wouldn't mind if you asked for permission, and he does an extremely thorough job with it. If you aren't an H-F member then I might just do it myself.
 

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
Premortal said:
I think it would have been much more efficient to just C&P Apathy's thread from H-F. He probably wouldn't mind if you asked for permission, and he does an extremely thorough job with it. If you aren't an H-F member then I might just do it myself.

I'm not going to take another person's work, even with permission.
 

Cicero

Onyx user!
Reputation
0
Leader said:
I'm not going to take another person's work, even with permission.

The fact of the matter is Apathy's thread is basically the same as this thread except longer, with more detail, and covering more ground. This isn't a matter of who's getting credit for what, it's a matter of making the same quality of information available on both forums.
 

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
Premortal said:
The fact of the matter is Apathy's thread is basically the same as this thread except longer, with more detail, and covering more ground. This isn't a matter of who's getting credit for what, it's a matter of making the same quality of information available on both forums.

I'd update the thread if it received more traffic, but our debate section isn't as big. I refuse to use someone else's work.
 

Cicero

Onyx user!
Reputation
0
Leader said:
I'd update the thread if it received more traffic, but our debate section isn't as big. I refuse to use someone else's work.

If both of your work is based around the same topic, wouldn't it be logical to think that they would have largely the same content? You don't even need to copy and paste the information, you could just base some of the content in your thread off of another user's thread. To blindly refuse to use someone else's work in a casual setting like this really doesn't hold any sort of merit.
 

Nevermind

User is banned.
Reputation
0
Premortal said:
If both of your work is based around the same topic, wouldn't it be logical to think that they would have largely the same content? You don't even need to copy and paste the information, you could just base some of the content in your thread off of another user's thread. To blindly refuse to use someone else's work in a casual setting like this really doesn't hold any sort of merit.

Again, I'm not going to use someone else's work. If I felt like the thread needed an update, I would update it myself, rather than using someone else's thread.
 
Top