What Makes a Good Debater?

[Jester]

Some seem to be better at arguing a given position than others.
So, everything being equal in terms of the strength of the position taken, what makes some debaters more convincing than others?

[McCulloch]

1. A genuine effort to understand the point of view of the one you do not agree with and respond from that understanding.
2. Intelligence and articulation. You have to find a way to make what you say intelligible and clear. I had a boss once who worked on the principle that you really cannot say that you fully understand something until you can successfully explain it to a typical ten year old.
3. Admits mistakes. You might just be wrong. The purpose should not be to win but to find truth.
4. Does not assume bad intentions. Assume that any misunderstanding of one's own position is due to it not being clearly explained. Unless it is blatantly obvious, the views expressed by others are to be taken as genuine. They are not trying to fool you. Avoid hidden agendas, semantic traps and playing games.
5. Sticks to the issues not the personalities. Focus. You may not convince your opponent, sometimes don't even try. Try to convince the undecided reader of the thread.
6. Never declares a win. If it is not obvious, then it shouldn't be said. If it is obvious, it needn't be said.
7. You gotta know went to fold. There are a lot of unproductive rabbit trails. Personal note: this one is one of my own weak points.

Just my opinion.

[otseng]

What I appreciate the most is civility and respect. Especially during times of fire. If someone can consistently maintain an even keel under the strongest storm, he/she has my utmost respect.

[Lux]

To me, a good debater is someone who:

Acknowledges that he/she might be wrong from the very start and embraces the learning that is sometimes involved in a good debate.

Knows how to present his/her ideas clearly and accurately.

Does not resort to "tricks", such as selective ignoring of arguments presented by others, personal provocations or changing subjects when 'losing' (I use the term loosely, because I don't think debate should be about winning or losing).

[Zzyzx]

.

what makes some debaters more convincing than others?

Debaters who I regard as convincing are those who make their points clearly, succinctly and powerfully, who document what they say, who answer all questions honestly and openly, who use no tricks or tactics or evasions.

Civility, by itself, is not at all convincing to me (though it is appreciated). Likewise, respect for other debaters is important, but does not convince me that the person's arguments are sound. Tolerance of the viewpoints of others is also important, but does not convince me that the person's arguments are valid.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Some seem to be better at arguing a given position than others.
So, everything being equal in terms of the strength of the position taken, what makes some debaters more convincing than others?

Supporting data (in various forms), particularly verifiable data. One who avoids challenges or questions, or otherwise won't respond in a clear, unambiguous fashion is much less likely to convince me of anything.

Or just be pretty and history indicates I'll fall for anything.

[Jester]

Or just be pretty and history indicates I'll fall for anything.

I can relate.

In any case, I love what's been said, so far.
I think the only addition I have is not unlike some that have been said: Not assuming the default viewpoint. I tend to find that some feel that everyone must, as a rule, use their own perspective and terms - trying to "win" by demanding the right to set all the terms. Running across it in others makes me want to be careful about not doing the same.

[Zzyzx]

.
Perhaps it is also important to identify what makes a debater UN-convincing.

1. Displays lack of knowledge of the topic or makes serious mistakes

2. Is dishonest or dishonorable in debate

3. Makes claims that cannot be supported and/or refuses to support claims made

4. Ignores Forum Rules and Guidelines and/or protests moderator actions

5. Avoids answering questions – ducks, dodges, dances or ignores questions

6. Depends on tricks, tactics, diversions and personal comments rather than debate

7. Attempts to claim superiority based on beliefs / convictions – or proclaims victory

8. Uses circular “reasoning� (citing a source to support itself)

9. Focuses on the insignificant or upon the person rather than debating issues

[McCulloch]

What I appreciate the most is civility and respect. Especially during times of fire. If someone can consistently maintain an even keel under the strongest storm, he/she has my utmost respect.

I think that it goes further than merely gaining respect. If your point it not read then it will not convince, even if you happen to be right. If you are rude, dismissive, uncivil or obnoxious, then the reader will focus on your personal attributes, get his back up, be insulted and not give your position the consideration and thought that it, quite evidently deserves.

Paul, quite eloquently made the same point. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. Noisy gongs and clanging cymbals do not win debates nor point to truth.

[Zzyzx]

.

What I appreciate the most is civility and respect. Especially during times of fire. If someone can consistently maintain an even keel under the strongest storm, he/she has my utmost respect.

I think that it goes further than merely gaining respect. If your point it not read then it will not convince, even if you happen to be right. If you are rude, dismissive, uncivil or obnoxious, then the reader will focus on your personal attributes, get his back up, be insulted and not give your position the consideration and thought that it, quite evidently deserves.

Paul, quite eloquently made the same point. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. Noisy gongs and clanging cymbals do not win debates nor point to truth.

While I appreciate and agree with Admin emphasis on civility as opposed to rudeness, dismissiveness, incivility, or obnoxiousness, I am NOT convinced by those characteristics.

If a person is VERY civil and considerate BUT presents weak, unsupported or irrational “arguments�, they certainly do not convince me that their ideas are truthful and accurate. Although I may like and appreciate them, their arguments are ineffective and unconvincing.

Of course, I do not view the matter from the perspective of Admin or Moderators.


Z