posting on bluelight is an example of participating in armchair debate, yes?
Do armchair debates follow different rules than regular debates? Because there are not that many people on BL who debate (as I understand the term).
A debates is an argument in which someone makes a case for something and their opponent makes an alternate case. Both sides try to to demolish the case of the other as they make their own. I know that you know this
@alasdairm as you often attempt to entice people into a debate.
Using a bit of cut and paste plagiarism..
To structure an argument the person with a point to prove should follow these steps:
- Claim - present your argument in a clear statement. This claim is one reason why you're in favour of/against the motion.
- Evidence - the evidence supporting your claim, such as, statistics, references, quotes, analogies etc.
- Impact - explain the significance of the evidence - how does this support your claim?
Someone wishing to oppose that claim via debate must then rebuttal it. The best place to target a rebuttal is the evidence your opponent uses but the following weaknesses can all be exploited to win a debate:
There are common flaws you can look for to form a rebuttal:
1. False dichotomy - this is where the speaker is trying to falsely divide the debate into two sides even though there are more alternatives than they state. It's likely the speaker is doing this on purpose but in some cases they do not understand the debate.
2. Assertion - this is when a speaker presents a statement which isn't actually an argument because there is no reason to believe that the statement is valid. It may just be an assumption. You can point out that there has not been enough examination to prove this validity and then give a reason why the assertion is (probably) not valid.
3. Morally flawed - arguments can be morally flawed, for example, "All criminals given a prison sentence should be given the death penalty instead, this will save the country money and space." What has been argued is true but it's clearly morally flawed.
4. Correlation rather than causation - a speaker may suggest a link between two events and suggest one led to the other. But the speaker may not explain how one caused the other event which can make an argument invalid.
5. Failure to deliver promises - sometimes a speaker might fail to complete a task they promised to deliver. For instance, they may state that they will provide evidence supporting a certain claim but they may lose track of what they have said and not actually do this.
6. Straw man - the opposing team introduces an argument and then rebuts it. They may use an extreme example of your proposal or perhaps they were hoping that you would make this argument.
7. Contradiction - an argument the other team presents may contradict one of their previous arguments. You must point out that the arguments cannot be true simultaneously and then explain how this reduces their case's credibility.
8. Compare the conclusion to reality - think "what would happen if what they (the other team) are suggesting is implemented right now?" This usually shows that it's more complicated than they have suggested and the changes can cause secondary problems.
Anybody claiming to be open to debate or imagining they are having a debate and wanting to win needs to understand these basics - which are not much in evidence around BL when contentious issues emerge.
