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?

[Zzyzx]

.

I think that the point Jester was making is that incivility is a symptom of greater underlying difficulties in a debater's thinking. Those that are rude and opinionated cannot communicate effectively. Those who resort to name calling rather than reason, show that they do not focus on the subject at hand. If that is the way that they approach contentious topics, they will necessarily be unable to grasp all sides of the issue for evaluation and cannot have a balanced or full perspective.

The thing with incivility is that it usually comes hand in hand with things such as disregard for the other debater's point of view, a closed mind, presumption that oneself is right and the other is wrong, etc. Either that or a very weak argument; otherwise I don't see why someone would be uncivil.

I do not disagree with any of the above. Yes, incivility may be some indication of “underlying difficulties� (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate an inability to communicate effectively (though not necessarily). Yes, name-calling is an indication may be an indication of lack of applied reasoning (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate closed mindedness (though not necessarily). Yes, we may not understand what motivates a person to be uncivil.

HOWEVER, none of the above negate the possibility of a person, even if uncivil, from presenting a compelling argument.

HOWEVER, no matter how “civil� a person may be, if their argument and presentation are weak, they are NOT compelling or convincing to me.

Are any of you willing to state that a very civil, but very ineffective argument (lack of reasoning, documentation, evidence) is MORE convincing to you than an “uncivil� argument powerfully presented WITH compelling reasoning, documentation and evidence?

Note that I do not attempt to defend incivility, but note that it NOT the most convincing factor (or even close) when I evaluate what is presented in debate.

[Jester]

I do not disagree with any of the above. Yes, incivility may be some indication of “underlying difficulties� (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate an inability to communicate effectively (though not necessarily). Yes, name-calling is an indication may be an indication of lack of applied reasoning (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate closed mindedness (though not necessarily). Yes, we may not understand what motivates a person to be uncivil.

HOWEVER, none of the above negate the possibility of a person, even if uncivil, from presenting a compelling argument.

HOWEVER, no matter how “civil� a person may be, if their argument and presentation are weak, they are NOT compelling or convincing to me.

Are any of you willing to state that a very civil, but very ineffective argument (lack of reasoning, documentation, evidence) is MORE convincing to you than an “uncivil� argument powerfully presented WITH compelling reasoning, documentation and evidence?

Note that I do not attempt to defend incivility, but note that it NOT the most convincing factor (or even close) when I evaluate what is presented in debate.

It seems that there is a lot of agreement here.
Unless I misunderstand, everyone seems to agree that civility does not in itself make an argument strong, but that it is a good thing to have in a debate.
I would even agree that strong arguments are possible without civility. My only disagreement on that point is that this seems to me to be the exception, rather than the rule. The reason why I referred to civility as the single largest factor is essentially what McCulloch and Lucia have said - that those who are uncivil tend to exclude themselves from the process of learning or understanding opposing arguments.
Yes, it is possible to understand without being civil, but, again, that seems to be the exception to the rule. I would completely agree with Lucia's comments about the idea that incivility usually indicates a close-mindedness.

Also, it is generally easier, in my opinion, to simply understand those who are civil. Incivility, by its very nature, tends to move the focus from the point of discussion onto the personal character of one's opponent. All talk about emotional reactions aside, that simply makes it harder to get clear, nuanced arguments. I've often found myself sifting through piles of comments and speculations about my personal character in search of the actual content of an argument - and at times ended up having to take guesses at what it might be. No, this is not an inevitable result of incivility, but it is a common problem. On the other side, I've never had to sift through a civil person's compliments to figure out what she is saying.

[Lux]

I do not disagree with any of the above. Yes, incivility may be some indication of “underlying difficulties� (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate an inability to communicate effectively (though not necessarily). Yes, name-calling is an indication may be an indication of lack of applied reasoning (though not necessarily). Yes, incivility may indicate closed mindedness (though not necessarily). Yes, we may not understand what motivates a person to be uncivil.

I agree there might be other reasons, but personally I've never found an uncivil debater who didn't also present one of the things listed above. This only applies to debate, though: I've had some uncivil but extremely smart and talented professors in college. I believe their incivility was their strategy for "preparing us for the real world". In debate, however, I know of no legitimate reason to be uncivil.

HOWEVER, none of the above negate the possibility of a person, even if uncivil, from presenting a compelling argument.

Indeed. But don't you think they are less likely to convince the majority if they are lacking civility?

HOWEVER, no matter how “civil� a person may be, if their argument and presentation are weak, they are NOT compelling or convincing to me.

Absolutely. Being civil is not enough to be a good debater.

Are any of you willing to state that a very civil, but very ineffective argument (lack of reasoning, documentation, evidence) is MORE convincing to you than an “uncivil� argument powerfully presented WITH compelling reasoning, documentation and evidence?

No, I don't state this. I would state, however, that I find a solid argument to be more convincing if presented in a civil manner.

Note that I do not attempt to defend incivility, but note that it NOT the most convincing factor (or even close) when I evaluate what is presented in debate.

It's not my number one either, but I do greatly appreciate civility in every social interaction, debate included.