How Do I Debate?

For me when I had debate sessions in high school, I educated myself on the subject as much as I could; filling myself in on all sides of the front so I could try to be the most openminded person without playing Devil's advocate.

When it came around, I mostly sat on the side lines and let others talk and gained insight on what each person was presenting, so if I felt like I could jump in, I had more material to work with. I too have huge anxiety problems, and I felt what made that easier to work with, was immersing myself into the subject and making me passionate about it--even if it was for that day, so when it happened, I felt more of a need to make my voice heard.

 

Ah, now that I totally get, so my bad there.

If you want, you can hang back with those who are on the same side as you and see if you warm up to the discussion.

I'm not sure if it matters, but one thing you could also do is brush up on your knowledge of different fallacies, so that way you can avoid them. I don't know if your teacher would be one to call anyone out for using strawman arguments or anything like that; but maybe it can help you make things a little more civil so it doesn't go from being a casual debate to arguments and fights.

What you could also do is research information on the bombings, so you can bring more information to the table; such as the number of causalities, the remnants of the bombings and the mark they've left, and historical information (such as how, to my memory, Japan was already losing the war severely and were on the verge of surrendering anyway--even if the bombings never took place).

When I was preparing for debates, I researched the topic for a good few days to make sure everything I had to offer was factual as I could get it. It was also to make sure my defense wasn't completely biased.

 

I understand (hugs) I hope everything goes well

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

I don't know much about debebating, but if it's similar to writing persuasive essays, you don't necessarily have to be willing to change your mind on a topic, but you have to understand the other side's point of view before you can try to convince them of your own.

 

When we have debating in schools and in competitions over here, people are assigned to either the Pro or Con team. They have to prepare and practice based on what team they're assigned to. So do you have that over there? Cause that will make it easier for you then?

If not and you have debate on both the Pros and Cons, maybe you can just talk about all the Cons and mention the Pros as short and quick as possible.

 

Present the facts, explain why they're important, and rebut by explaining problems with the opposition's evidence. Basically what people do on forums like this one, except much more structured.

The first step is the one requiring the most homework, since you need, you know, facts.

 

Step 1: insult the other person
Step 2: ignore the other person when they respond
Step 3: claim victory

 

As Austin said, if you've ever written persuasive essays, it's very similar.

Research on either side of the issue is EXTREMELY important. I cannot stress this enough. That's because if you want to be able to compose your argument well, you need to have what we call here...

Ammo.

The way I've done it, which seems to be effective, is by using the TEA method.
What is the TEA method??

It's very simple. TEA is an acronym for:

Topic (This is where you state your main argument, as clearly as you possibly can put it into words, and as few as necessary)

Examples (Links, Links, Links)

Spoiler

A note on this one: MAKE SURE you have CREDIBLE sources. If you're debating about vaccines, Alex Jones's Infowars probably won't be your best choice. If you're talking about whether or not gay people are pedos, then Fox News or the 700 Club probably shouldn't be in your wall of text. DailyKos probably isn't the best if you want to present accurate information on gun control (neither is Town Hall).

Analysis (Here's where the connection between your argument and real life meet).

If you can remember that, then you'll be making strong, coherent arguments in no time.

Now, if you come to the conclusion that your opponent has a stronger argument than you do, (and here's the important part, I hope you're taking notes)

Then say that, and accept it. If you want to question it, by all means go ahead and question it. But if there's a solid conclusion being made by clearly credible sources (you know, if someone like NASA, Snopes or Politifact says something), then make that conclusion. Because if we keep fighting over what exactly the problem is when it's been made clear what the problem is (I'm talking to you, anti-vaxxers), we can't fix it and make the world better.

 

Regardless of your moral position on it, it did have arguable justification. WWII was an incredibly bloody war, and by using the bomb to force Japan into a surrender, they may have saved a similar or greater number of American lives. And except in very worldly perspectives, the leadership of a country are first responsible for their own people.

^^Doesn't matter whether or not I agree with that. It forces the opposition into finding a way to say "No, the atom bombs' damage to humanity was too great to justify any beneficial result." Which is also a valid stance, but they'd have to back it up somehow.

A debate is really interesting because it's a battle of the wits often complicated by emotion. It's an imposition of the mind over the heart, which is a really trying test for some.

EDIT: Wall message on the way if you care to talk.

 

Never use absolutes, because there will always be some exceptions.

Keep an open mind. Do not say things along the lines of "If you couldn't do (blank), then you can't say (blank)." This is a debate. Every point is valid.

The best way to win a debate is to understand both sides and know how to persuade a crowd with stronger arguments. It's not about whether or not you agree with your topic, it's about whether you can push your message.

 

We can't win 'em all, friend. (*hug*) I too have had moments where my ethics prevent me from doing school work. For example, once I was writing an essay in Biology on human cloning. I was so fundamentally against it at first that I didn't even know how to start, but as I proceeded, I found that in the end, I wasn't as against it as I thought I was.

I mean, when it comes to your personal most basic view on this - that killing is bad and should be avoided whenever possible and practicable - I think everyone in the room agreed with you on that (regardless if you said anything or not). But this matter is a bit more complex; for example, it's a debated, but as far as I know mostly accepted assumption, that had those tragedies not been set in motion, a lot of more Japanese people, plus lots of US soldiers, would have died. So in that sense it's a major evil done in the name of greater good. Not that I think that entirely justifies it, but... seen like that I think it at least helps to keep one's head a bit cooler.

 

You did better than I could with debating I can write speeches easily, due to just putting out my own points and acting my way through things, however shutting down another point from the other team is super challenging for me, I cannot write speeches in limited time...

(what I mean by acting out a way, is that I sort of take the approach of acting, in making a whole different character to display an opinion, it helps me feel better when saying things that I wouldn't really agree with, one time had to do a persuasive speech into why discriminating against the Jews was perfectly ok in WWII, it was freaking hard to do, but I created a persona that was ok with saying it, and as it was an assignment that forced me to be on this one side, people knew that I didn't truly believe the things I said)

Hopefully that's useful