Dead Cats and Socrates
Terry's Rules of Public Debate
Last night I was out, at a restaurant/bar in Seattle and was, because I allowed myself to get involved in a debate I was almost given the bum's rush.
Which led me to explain to the fellow I was later chatting with (whose discussion led to my involvement) the rules I've found useful in such things.
1: The person with whom you are debating is almost certainly not suadable, so the case is being made to the audience and one can only hope a reasoned argument will act as a seed crystal in an intelligent opponent.
2: Stay on topic, don't allow tangents to prevent the issue from being ducked.
3: Be reasonable. If you come across as a loud-mouthed fanatic no-one who doesn't already agree will be persuaded, no matter how right you are.
4: Look for what I call the dead cat. This is from one of the classic examples of poor reasoning.
a: All cats die
b: Socrates is dead
c: Socrates was a cat
The unasked question is, "are cats the only things which die,"?
The example in last night's debate was on why marriage needed to be limited to a man and a woman.
The affirmative side was using the term, "accepted definition," which seemed to preclude same-sex marriage (sort of like the requirement that one's grandparents had voted in local elections being a pre-requisite for one to vote).
Of course I wanted to point out that social norms can (and do) change. The dead cat I used was interracial marriage. He didn't accept that the change there mattered, because the participants were still of mixed gender, but the point was made (to the audience) that what was once unthinkable, is now not beyond the pale.
To close, the most important thing to remember is that you aren't trying to change the mind of the man who is certain you are wrong, but rather to convince the person who has yet to finalise his position.
People respond to reason better than to abuse.
Last night I was out, at a restaurant/bar in Seattle and was, because I allowed myself to get involved in a debate I was almost given the bum's rush.
Which led me to explain to the fellow I was later chatting with (whose discussion led to my involvement) the rules I've found useful in such things.
1: The person with whom you are debating is almost certainly not suadable, so the case is being made to the audience and one can only hope a reasoned argument will act as a seed crystal in an intelligent opponent.
2: Stay on topic, don't allow tangents to prevent the issue from being ducked.
3: Be reasonable. If you come across as a loud-mouthed fanatic no-one who doesn't already agree will be persuaded, no matter how right you are.
4: Look for what I call the dead cat. This is from one of the classic examples of poor reasoning.
a: All cats die
b: Socrates is dead
c: Socrates was a cat
The unasked question is, "are cats the only things which die,"?
The example in last night's debate was on why marriage needed to be limited to a man and a woman.
The affirmative side was using the term, "accepted definition," which seemed to preclude same-sex marriage (sort of like the requirement that one's grandparents had voted in local elections being a pre-requisite for one to vote).
Of course I wanted to point out that social norms can (and do) change. The dead cat I used was interracial marriage. He didn't accept that the change there mattered, because the participants were still of mixed gender, but the point was made (to the audience) that what was once unthinkable, is now not beyond the pale.
To close, the most important thing to remember is that you aren't trying to change the mind of the man who is certain you are wrong, but rather to convince the person who has yet to finalise his position.
People respond to reason better than to abuse.
