Three Rules of Debate
When I was a child, my parents encouraged us children to solve our differences with verbal sparring. If we wanted to get physical, they allowed that, too. (They were very laissez-faire.) But the preference was for verbal sparring based on formal logic.
We conducted this “fights” in front of witnesses (family) and the victor was declared when the opponent lost his cool and started calling names or cried. (Hey, we were kids. We cried.)
One of the first lessons I learned back then was that arrogance was a major pitfall.
My second law of debate is qualification of statements.
My third law of debate is knowing your facts before opening your mouth.
Let’s say that you are debating, say, environmentalism. You say with arrogance and impatience that “without a doubt, a shift to hydroelectric power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.
Common misconception, but scientists actually believe that hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. (Source)
The retort came, and you’ve just lost all credibility, primarily because of arrogance.
If you had qualified your statement with “I believe”, or “I think”, or some other qualifier, you would be in the clear. After all, you didn’t state it as fact, you accurately described it as a belief and as such honestly represented it as possibly not accurate.
So rule #1 (arrogance) and rule #2 (qualifiers) go hand in hand. Rule #3 is the kicker, though.
If you had honestly stated that you needed to fact check, you could have avoided all and any embarrassment. Often times in the heat of debate you may feel the urge to open your mouth. You may be 110% confident that what you plan to say would stand up to criticism. Resist that urge. Credibility, like life, is hard to recover once lost. If you open your mouth and state falsehoods as facts, your stock will plummet.
Check facts, have your sources ready to cite. Don’t cite your sources immediately. Just hold them like cards in a game of poker. Once your opponent ignorantly casts doubt upon your statements, you respectfully lay down the facts, supported by credible sources, and destroy your opponent’s credibility.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“One of the first lessons I learned back then was that arrogance was a major pitfall.”
I’m not sure why, but I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I have an idea why you laughed, but then I’m sure you do too.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 am
Haha. I wish my parents had let me argue. Whatever though, I still did.
Nice read.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Quite so. Blurting out unverified ‘facts’ is one of the most common tactics of the ultimate loser of a debate - do it myself fairly often
One thing I find myself doing sometimes is saying ’search engines’ do such-and-such when really I only mean ‘Google’, and vice versa. That kind of thing is also easy to do when posting in haste so always review what you’re saying.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hiya Rank and Wes, I am so gald you both commented. Was worried nobody was reading this.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Nice read! But, what about making it habit (not a rule) not to argue/debate with one who really doesn’t know these rules?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
If I were a better man, then I would indeed abide by that rule. But sometimes a debate begs for a rebuttal. Like in the case of racism. Many a racist is arrogant, unknowing of facts, and fails to qualify their statements. But to allow the racist debate to stand unquestioned would be wrong, no?