Debate tactics megathread.

[Danioover9000]

   Share some debate tactics you've notice either side using:

   Sheesh, that's actually hard to argue against if that's only the angle they're using to attack Douglas with.

[High-valance]

Some of the most common debate tactics i see are attempts at distortion and evasion tactics, so misrepresenting the other side and dodging their points / questions / arguments, also known as straw man and red herring fallacies. Begging the question is also very common. I can go on and on about common dirty / misleading debate tactics. However i suspect much if not even most of the time it's done unconsciously. Theyre not aware theyre doing it. 

Edited March 21 by High-valance

[Danioover9000]

@High-valance

10 hours ago, High-valance said:

Some of the most common debate tactics i see are attempts at distortion and evasion tactics, so misrepresenting the other side and dodging their points / questions / arguments, also known as straw man and red herring fallacies. Begging the question is also very common. I can go on and on about common dirty / misleading debate tactics. However i suspect much if not even most of the time it's done unconsciously. Theyre not aware theyre doing it. 

   I agree, evasion and distortion attempts include dodging, deflecting, weaseling and goal post changing, also straw mans and red herring fallacies deal with the other arguer funneling attention to the weakest point or exaggerated bad example of the argument point, and misrepresenting the other arguer's position and argument as that straw man. Begging the question is another common one, but so is cherry picking and sunk cost fallacy. Below is a good example of some of these fallacies:

https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1770726826861621593?s=20

   Notice how Destiny keeps on reframing, misrepresenting and trying to focus on a specific weak point of Normand Finkelstein's argument, and makes it seem it's mostly his position. Destiny has a bad habit of these tactics for the majority of his 12 years of being an online gamer/streamer/political commentators and debate bro. Similarly Avi suffers from this but he over analyzes and reduces to hyper logic takes, both tend to argue and make a giant deal out of semantic issues. 

[Danioover9000]

@High-valance  Another stable of Destiny's fallacies is he poisons the well, for example he poisons the well with John Mearshiemer, but notice that he commits a prior fallacy of disclaiming that he's committing the poison the well fallacy to his viewers AS IF that justifies his slanderous claim of John's sources for his argumentation of the Ukraine/Russia conflict:

 

   Here's also a good explanation of begging the question:

 

[zazen]

Haven’t gotten into it yet but from the comments this seems to be a good back and forth.

 

 

[bebotalk]

As an overview:

- Define debate terms and scope 

- Define debate opening positions - essentially who is in favour and against a topic or proposition

- State points clearly and without any ad homenins

- Answer opposing points directly with no red herrings

- Pick up on points the opposing person says, and use logic to take them apart

 

Being a good debater lends to mental sharpness, clear and quick talking, and researching well on a topic beforehand.

 

If anything, both Dr. Peterson and Destiny showed strong debating techniques. 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

6 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

As an overview:

- Define debate terms and scope 

- Define debate opening positions - essentially who is in favour and against a topic or proposition

- State points clearly and without any ad homenins

- Answer opposing points directly with no red herrings

- Pick up on points the opposing person says, and use logic to take them apart

 

Being a good debater lends to mental sharpness, clear and quick talking, and researching well on a topic beforehand.

 

If anything, both Dr. Peterson and Destiny showed strong debating techniques. 

   I agree, although IMO Andrew Wilson's debate style would be more efficient because he does directly engage with argument points without the sophistry, and almost always manages to make Destiny angry from both his direct engagement to his interruptions.😂

[Danioover9000]

and

are a few clip examples of his debate style.

[Danioover9000]

   Very interesting debate here, shows the anti mainstream and mainstream bias at play:

 

[Danioover9000]

   Other debate tactics here:

   Is character assassination, slander and defamation of Normand Finkelstein. The main problem wit this comedian hack and the other 2 is that they're totally biased against Normand, and they're reasoning is coopted by their ego such that they believe they're in the moral right to slander Normand like this, without properly understanding why. In fact, they have a totally wrong conception of debating/arguing, which the true nature of debates is to ensure spreading of ideology, to convince, persuade and convert others to the arguer's ideology and worldview. DEBATES WERE NEVER ABOUT THE TRUETH! STOP WITH THIS APPEALS TO LOGOS, TO SOME POPLISM AND AUTHORITY! Damn, these fucking comedians are just so stupid to assume a fake nature about debating when it's just to merely ensure SURVIVAL OF YOUR IDEOLOGY!