The Traits and Values of a Good Debater

[Duxwing]

What are the traits and values of a good debater? Justify your answer. I'll list off a few:

--Altruism: we debate not only for our own sakes, but for others' as well, and we must remain emotionally safe throughout and interested in the larger picture.
--Integrity: Debate relies on the idea that what you see is what you get. Leave the psychology to the psychologists and check your lies at the door. Likewise, admit defeat when defeated, and be a good sport.
--Grace: Win gracefully and use no more passion than necessary to make a point. Notice signs of emotional or mental fatigue to give weaker opponents a fighting chance.
--Intelligence: As strength is to the fencer, so is intelligence to the debater.
--Wit: A clever insight can make an entire construction of logic come tumbling down.
--Detachment: Keep your passions from your reasoning, and remember that even the most heated battle among old rivals can end in exhausted pats on the back.

-Duxwing

 

[TimeAsylums]

What are the traits and values of a good debater? Justify your answer. I'll list off a few:

--Altruism: we debate not only for our own sakes, but for others' as well, and we must remain emotionally safe throughout and interested in the larger picture.


-Duxwing

I agree with all of the others, but I don't know if you really meant Altruism:

define altruism - Google Search


"the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."


Surely some great debaters are altruistic, but the majority? Eh.
(or a lot, for that matter)

I like "detached" (which you included) more.

That is, I wouldn't rate a debater's skills on their altruism.

 

[redbaron]

Good debater is an oxymoron.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I disagree with all but the last two, strike detachment as neutral and equal to attachment, label wit a mere mechanism, and add perspective as the only true value.

The purpose of debate is to identify and gain knowledge. Mechanism doesn't matter. If you can't identify and invalidate lies, you have no place in a debate. Argument is the failure to see other points of view.

 

[Hadoblado]

You really needed to define 'good' here. My understanding of a good debater is someone that is more likely to win debates.

Te users seems good at debates in this sense.

 

[kvothe27]

In informal situations, whether a person is a good debater or not depends on the debater's goals and values in question and whether the debater is able to meet them.

In more formal situations, it depends on the judge's criteria as well as who the audience is (since it's more of a sport in such situations and thus dependent, in part, on external rules, as well as the audience and judge as measures). In such situations, it depends on how well someone can play the judge and audience. Logic doesn't count for much in such situations, for example, if it goes over the head of the audience and judge. If the debater doesn't care about the judge or audience as a measure, he can revert back to his own criteria or adhere to the external set of rules. So, similar to how it may be beneficial for a soccer player to break the rules without the ref (and/or audience) knowing (or let them know if it's entertaining and puts you in their good graces), such is the case in more formal debates as well.

 

[Jennywocky]

You really needed to define 'good' here. My understanding of a good debater is someone that is more likely to win debates.

Te users seems good at debates in this sense.

Agreed.

Personally, I try to view those interactions as a chance to expand the collective knowledge of both sides, although I know at times I momentarily forget that. The thing is, I'm not sure that's a debate; maybe that's properly called a discussion.

If you're involved in a debate, doesn't that suggest there are winners and losers and the goal is to be the side that best argues its side?

 

[just george]

good arguer > good debater

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

For me the most important factor in any debate is that it begins with all participants being open to the possibility of having their position on the issue in question be reversed by the end of the debate.

But i'm preaching to the choir, no?

 

[GodOfOrder]

I agree with most. The idea that debate is good because it helps perfect one's reasoning is one that I hold. However, the idea of grace I think should only be taken so far. The opponent should not be shown any quarter. That is assuming that what is meant is that the argument itself is given no mercy. If you are both objective, then getting your argument ripped to shreds is only cause for reassessment.

 

[Jennywocky]

For me the most important factor in any debate is that it begins with all participants being open to the possibility of having their position on the issue in question be reversed by the end of the debate.

I think that's part of the integrity of the process.

But i'm preaching to the choir, no?

Probably. For me, I find even when I'm inadvertently invested in my position, I'm still compelled to change if someone presents a point I haven't considered. Even if the discussion never finishes, I continue to think about it on my own and make adjustments.

As far as tact and whatever else, well, yes, it's possible to present a position without being an ass about it... but I'm more inclined like GoO said and others that the arguments cannot be given mercy. You can be respectful of a person, I suppose, but the argument itself cannot be shown leniency; those are two different things.

I guess the problem more comes if someone can't detach enough and is having a meltdown. I don't retract my assessment of flaws in the argument, but I'm not sure what the point in continuing to debate is once the point has been made.

 

[Hadoblado]

The idea that debate is good because it helps perfect one's reasoning is one that I hold.

I'd like to add to this that debate improves one's abilities to make their logic understandable. It forces you to articulate yourself, which, from the perspective of the people around you, makes you a better thinker.

Also, once you can articulate your thoughts well, you open yourself up to verification from peers, which can lead to actual improvements in thoughts.

 

[Duxwing]

I'd like to add to this that debate improves one's abilities to make their logic understandable. It forces you to articulate yourself, which, from the perspective of the people around you, makes you a better thinker.

Also, once you can articulate your thoughts well, you open yourself up to verification from peers, which can lead to actual improvements in thoughts.

It also lets you check your own proofs by writing them down and returning to them a day later: your intuition will not cloud your understanding of the bare symbols.

-Duxwing