Debating stupid claims, outside the net

[Sarevok]

One of the things that I learned at this site is the importantance of logic and honesty in debating. In real life when argueing a point face to face style often wins over substance. Even the most outrageous viewpoints can be sold if the debater is charismatic enough. Here on this forum everything that is said is in written format so claims can be carefully analyzed and evidence submitted. This is not usually possible in a social setting. As a result I usually tend to avoid argueing about many things even when I know it is wrong. Someone saying the jews were behind 911 ? too bad it will take too long to explain. Neil Armstrong is a muslim ? Again if you cant get through a fundies head with with URL links I doubt talking will help. Nuclear power is bad ? See first point.

So I try not to argue when claims like these come up. I make a few sarcastic comments and change the topic to something else. Is this right or is it worth trying to debate serious issues face to face in a causual social setting ?

[Lord Zentei]

I have had similar problems, though I find it galling to have to ignore nonsense for these reasons.

My suggestion is to build your real life debating skills from the ground up: try arguing a little before changing the subject to see which approaches work, then gradually improve your repretoire. The important thing is not to lose your cool.

[salm]

In debates like that when neither side can prove that they´re right i usually suggest a bet. 10 € for the one who can provide a link the next day, or whenever possible. I´ve made a fair share of money that way.

[slebetman]

It is unfortunate but in real life even the simple broken record tactic actually works.

[Surlethe]

I've found that in real life, analogies work extremely well. Analogies, and breaking up the argument into bite-sized pieces. Play nice, bear along with them, and ask them to play along with you a little bit when you're done listening to them.

[Rye]

I find humour is king in real life. Essentially, I listen to them, find out where they're being hypocritical with what they said earlier, then gradually make more fun of them the more ridiculous they get. Like start blaming the jews for everything. Oh you were late the other day? The JEWS! Etc. Just mock the shit out of them in such a way as to amuse the audience and it will be its own reward.

[Lord Pounder]

It is unfortunate but in real life even the simple broken record tactic actually works.

Quite more effective in RL too. Many times I've saw people just give up their reasonable well thought arguement because the broken record is spoiling a good night with mostly good company.

[Darth Wong]

Face to face conversations are a lousy venue for debate. Debate is really something that is best done in written format.

Take note:

Political debates = always face to face
Scientific debates = written treatises

Which one has a better record of actually accomplishing anything or solving problems?

[General Zod]

Unless it's a subject you have a lot of practice in and are fairly knowledgeable of, it's way too easy to get beaten by style over substance bullshit. Otherwise the best tactic for a real life debate is to know a ton more than the person you're arguing.

[Darth Wong]

Remember another rule of face-to-face debating. If you can convert your argument into a slogan, even if that slogan is nothing more than an axiomatic restatement of your conclusion, it becomes twice as effective. If that slogan rhymes, it is four times as effective. This is how stupid verbal debates tend to be.

[General Zod]

Remember another rule of face-to-face debating. If you can convert your argument into a slogan, even if that slogan is nothing more than an axiomatic restatement of your conclusion, it becomes twice as effective. If that slogan rhymes, it is four times as effective. This is how stupid verbal debates tend to be.

Especially if you can drown out your opponent with tons of slogans. See the rule about being more knowledgable.

[Darth Wong]

I will never forget a political debate I saw once where they interviewed audience members afterwards and asked them who won. Almost to a man, they agreed that the broken-record debater won by a landslide. Why? Because she "stayed on message".

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. That's when I truly realized how fucking stupid the average person is. I had always sort of assumed the average person was a dolt, but this was a new low.

[petesampras]

I will never forget a political debate I saw once where they interviewed audience members afterwards and asked them who won. Almost to a man, they agreed that the broken-record debater won by a landslide. Why? Because she "stayed on message".

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. That's when I truly realized how fucking stupid the average person is. I had always sort of assumed the average person was a dolt, but this was a new low.

I think a major problem with political televised debates, at least in the UK, is that the moderator/chair never do their job properly. People are allowed to go off on tangents when asked questions, thus the 'broken record' style always wins.

[Surlethe]

I wonder what would happen if someone pointed out that the purpose of a debate is to discover the truth, not convince people. "Find the truth" might made into a good slogan itself; then, if the opponent starts repeating himself or jumping off on tangents, you could point out that he's not trying to discover the truth.

[General Zod]

I wonder what would happen if someone pointed out that the purpose of a debate is to discover the truth, not convince people. "Find the truth" might made into a good slogan itself; then, if the opponent starts repeating himself or jumping off on tangents, you could point out that he's not trying to discover the truth.

Unfortunately it's entirely possible to be completely right about a topic and not be very convincing to an audience that what you are in fact telling them is the truth, regardless if the opponent is going on tangents or not.

[R. U. Serious]

Remember another rule of face-to-face debating. If you can convert your argument into a slogan, even if that slogan is nothing more than an axiomatic restatement of your conclusion, it becomes twice as effective. If that slogan rhymes, it is four times as effective. This is how stupid verbal debates tend to be.

The slogan "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" (referring to the glove as well as the chain of argument of the prosecution) was probably one of the major reasons OJ got away.

[wolveraptor]

I was shocked when I heard that one. Cochrane was supposed to be this fucking genius lawyer, and he comes out with some bullshit rhyme to acquit OJ. I can rhyme too. Watch.

If I use a fuckin' rhyme,
He won't serve the time.

[Stile]

I will never forget a political debate I saw once where they interviewed audience members afterwards and asked them who won. Almost to a man, they agreed that the broken-record debater won by a landslide. Why? Because she "stayed on message".

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. That's when I truly realized how fucking stupid the average person is. I had always sort of assumed the average person was a dolt, but this was a new low.

"You're no Jack Kennedy" is a notable example.

Although Quayle showed later on how stupid he is with his "Quayle-isms". W must've taken some lessons from him.

[slebetman]

Especially if you can drown out your opponent with tons of slogans.

Real life person-to-person debate, not the televised stuff, you can get away with drowning out your opponent with just tons of words, especially if you raise your voice a bit. It's like saying I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I TYPE IN ALL-CAPS! Doesn't even work on usenet much less here but works in real life

[Winston Blake]

I will never forget a political debate I saw once where they interviewed audience members afterwards and asked them who won. Almost to a man, they agreed that the broken-record debater won by a landslide. Why? Because she "stayed on message".

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. That's when I truly realized how fucking stupid the average person is. I had always sort of assumed the average person was a dolt, but this was a new low.

'Stick-to-it-iveness' is an easy way to impress people even outside debate situations. Just recently I looked into Patch Adams (simply because I've seen the movie), and found he seems to be a bit of a sophist asshole. Anyway, this is from an article with quotes from him about how people with depression are just being selfish and should suck it up.

“I was really impressed with him because he has a set of personal beliefs and he sticks to those beliefs no matter what anybody else says, no matter what anybody else does,” said fourth-year VUSM student Philip Budge, Ph.D. “I really admire that because there are very, very few people in the world who are that way.

This idea that a strong person is one who 'sticks to their beliefs' no matter what new evidence may be encountered is extremely common and utterly unscientific. Anyone who contradicts you is just a 'negative person' or a 'naysayer/quitter/pessimist/skeptic/critic' and should be avoided. Just look at Dubya. He doesn't 'make mistakes' - he stays the course and defies the pessimist naysayers... and he's loved for it.

[dworkin]

Yes, people are idiots. Think about what you are. You are a highly social ape whose biological success is intimately tied up with that of your tribe(s).
An excellent survival strategy is to go with what you (don't) know.

And what is your tribe these days? Bloody hard question, to which I have no fucking clue. Where my tribe begins and ends is a source of much of modern insanity*.

*Modern, in this case means any society incorporating more than 150 members.

However those societies that promote robust debate have done well. Of course this tradition doesn't let anyone play. Debate is a nasty robust game and not for the faint brained or hearted. Since the rewards totally outweigh the risks, daft buggers are always in good supply.

So in a progressive society, while there is apparent overwhelming support for the status quo there are also support systems for those with new and novel ideas. Just don't expect it to be nice. It's wierd, but it makes sense. Even in biology.

Think of SDN as a proving ground. Here the worst is that you're termed a WTPF or banned. Life is nastier and is nowhere near as forgiving as Mike.

(i'll now go and eat my baby)

[Kittie Rose]

Actually, this is even more true online. People who sound reserved and intelligent get respected and people who are generally moral outraged at their bigotry get banned.

Style over Substance is one of the worst fallacies.

[Lord Pounder]

Style over Substance is one of the worst fallacies.

What a shame you have neither.

[Kittie Rose]

And that comment certainly didn't, ironically.

[Teleros]

Style over Substance is one of the worst fallacies

Yet as this thread shows, it's a winner in face-to-face debates.

So any tips that don't rely on rhetorical skills, fallacies and whatnot? We've had humour etc earlier on in the thread, but any other tips?