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]

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.

You are correct. Civility and respect will not make a weak argument strong. But the lack of civility and respect may cause a strong argument to be ignored. Thus a good debater, must have both a strong argument and civility. Lacking either will disqualify one from being a good debater.

[Zzyzx]

.

You are correct. Civility and respect will not make a weak argument strong. But the lack of civility and respect may cause a strong argument to be ignored. Thus a good debater, must have both a strong argument and civility. Lacking either will disqualify one from being a good debater.

I respectfully disagree (at least in some cases) – and can honestly say that I have learned as much from those who lack civility. A case in point:

In graduate school I took a course from a truly obnoxious female professor of geology. She appeared to be trying to “be as good as or better than the boys� (male geologists) in teaching a small and very advanced class to an exclusively male group.

Her theories about the mechanisms of glacial deposition conflicted with mine, so we clashed more than a little (usually outside class). She assigned a massive term paper designed to prove her point (or show me / us that she was right). I and a research partner proved her dead wrong beyond all doubt in a beautifully prepared and thoroughly documented research paper -- to the extent that she suggested that we publish the results in a professional peer reviewed journal. We declined because she insisted on being the senior author (pulling rank).

An interesting side note is that she then required us to turn in our computer punch cards (it goes that far back) in order to receive a grade for the course (perhaps so she could publish the study alone). We complied – but shuffled the cards before turning them in (and as anyone who knows about early computers, ONE card out of place would destroy a program).

We learned FAR more from that obnoxious professor BECAUSE of her obnoxiousness, than if she had taught the class in a civil manner.

In my opinion, the same applies to debate.

[otseng]

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.

I'm not saying that civility by itself makes one a good debater. It is simply the primary factor for me. Even if one presents all the evidence in the world, has airtight reasoning, is eloquent, and has a Nobel Peace Prize hanging over his fireplace, if he lacks civility, I do not think he is a good debater.

There are a multitude of characteristics that I think makes one a good debater. Civility is only one, but I consider it the most important.

[otseng]

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.

True as well. But I'm much more forgiving for a weak argument than disrespectful conduct.

[McCulloch]

I [...] can honestly say that I have learned as much from those who lack civility.

You then are a remarkable person. However, most people are more likely to be receptive to new ideas from someone that has not just insulted them or pissed them off with rudeness. Good debate, in my view, is the art of expressing a conflicting point of view in such a way as to make it most likely to be accepted.

[Angel]

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?

When you say "convincing" that leads me to think that it would depend on the audience (religious, scientists, philosophers, skeptics, a combination in a common crowd, etc). Some people are swayed more by a passionate or charismatic debater and oftentimes the content and substance behind those type of debaters are overlooked. And of course others do not go by how passionate or charismatic someone sounds but evaluate someone's argument based on substance. I'm personally for a way of debating that combines both style and substance without taking away from validity/truth.


I'll outline some factors below that I think makes one a good debater:

1. Knowing and applying the basic rules of logical reasoning (agreeing on the meaning of key terms, law of non-contradiction, knowing about and not committing logical fallacies, etc.)

2. Having sufficient or good knowledge on the subject of debate. The more you know the better it is, most times.

3. Factoring in both sides before reaching a conclusion or arguing for that conclusion. This can involve testing your arguments by seeing if there are any potential objections or weaknesses to it or anticipating what someone with an opposing viewpoint may say, and from there you can modify/solidify or drop your argument based on whatever you see from testing your argument in this way.
I think other relevant factors that fall along these lines is to be as objective as humanly possible, fair-minded, open-minded, etc.

Sidenote: As an agnostic, I tend to frustrate some people when I oftentimes don't argue for a conclusion so I end up not taking any sides other than exposing wherever I see potential bias, assumptions, and unwarranted conclusions.

4. Know your opponent. This can be done by knowing the philosophical positions of your opponent (naturalism, positivism, relativism, a Christian fundamentalism, progressive Christianity, etc.) Someone's philosophy is likely to determine how one will view the world, how they'll interpret or use facts, and of course that will be some of the underlying reasons for their position(s) taken in a debate. It's also not a matter of knowing your opponent's philosophy but also knowing how to argue against them or why you disagree with them which will help you anticipate their argument and to shoot it down, if you can.


5. I think someone should debate with respect and civility as well so that there won't be little to no detraction from the substance of the argument, and so there will be be more willingness to listen to your opponents argument and learn from each other in the end.


6. Since I'm a Christian, then I would also say to "pray" that God will bring out the best out of you. Maybe you can also pray that God will give you the answers to say but I don't think He'll do that every time seeing that He requires people to work, so learning, studying, and doing the things it takes to become a good debater may be based on whatever work and preparation you put into it. Perhaps God can stir the debate in such a direction that all of the debaters and the audience feel that the debate was purposeful and helpful for a greater understanding and whatever good that can come from a debate.

[Jester]

Sorry for the delay.

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.

I'd side with Osteng and McCulloch on this one. Civility alone doesn't make an argument strong, but it is probably the greatest single factor. Not only is it usually required for creating any openness in one's opponent, but it is the only way to learn, in my experience. An uncivil debater is a close-minded debater, who will never see the flaws in her reasoning - let alone get a clear enough understanding of her opponents to present arguments tailored to them.
Yes, I agree that a blunt and disrespectful person can sometimes make one think, but anyone who is near-sighted enough to behave this way isn't likely to catch a person on an issue of complexity. Certainly, their arguments will be drowned out by the need to attack. One can't be uncivil without taking concentration off the issue, and onto winning an argument, meaning that sound-byte reasoning is all that can really be given until a minimum level of civility is achieved.

[Zzyzx]

.

Civility alone doesn't make an argument strong, but it is probably the greatest single factor.

"The greatest single factor"??? More important than broad knowledge of the subject? More important than ability to communicate effectively?

I will stipulate that if two debaters are "equally matched" in ability and knowledge, the more civil is likely to be more convincing (at least to me -- and probably others).

[McCulloch]

"The greatest single factor"??? More important than broad knowledge of the subject? More important than ability to communicate effectively?

I will stipulate that if two debaters are "equally matched" in ability and knowledge, the more civil is likely to be more convincing (at least to me -- and probably others).

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.

[Lux]

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.