Debate Guide: Starting a debate: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="margin-right: 25px; float: left;">__TOC__</div>Whilst Debate Guide maintains advice sections dealing with ''responses'' to arguments, the following advice page deals with ''starting debates and asserting arguments''. Although you will eventually have to respond to the arguments of others, this is not usually the best way of starting a discussion. Here, we will explain how to go about proposing a debate, making your argument heard.
<div style="margin-right: 25px; float: left;">__TOC__</div>While '''Debate Guide''' maintains advice sections dealing with ''responses'' to arguments, the following advice page deals with ''starting debates''. Although you will eventually have to respond to the flawed arguments of others, rebuttals are not the best way of starting a debate if you are either an established community member, or debating within a more intellectual forum. Here, we will explain how to go about proposing a debate on your own terms, and making your argument heard in high-brow debating venues.


Consider the impact of your advocacy before starting a debate on the web. Ask yourself if what you are doing is going to lead to a considerable overall net gain in public knowledge and the accuracy thereof. [[Debate Guide: Don't be too rational|Simply being "right" isn't good enough]].
Consider the impact of your advocacy before starting a debate. Your aim should be to make clear and striking facts available to curious and open minded readers, giving them the opportunity to undertake their own balanced research on the issues at hand before responding (if they decide to). So ask yourself how you will be contributing to public knowledge and the accuracy thereof.  
 
Also remember that [[Debate Guide: Don't be too rational|simply being "right" isn't good enough]] - and even among intellectuals, carefully disguised irrational devices can be persuasive.


==Options==
==Options==


:''[[Links (Fora)]] lists past and potential venues.''
[[Image:Start.jpg|thumb|Be prepared...]]With today's evolved internet, you have a veritable banquet of options open to you. While '''Debate Guide''' is aimed at a variety of discussion formats, the largest list of bulletin boards (our original focus) can be found on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_forums Wikipedia]. There are still some other options that we will briefly run through:


[[Image:Start.jpg|thumb|Be prepared...]]With today's evolved internet, you have a veritable banquet of options open to you. Whilst Debate Guide is primarily oriented towards the discussion board format, as embraced by the Internet's [http://www.big-boards.com/ largest resource] for said system. There are still some other options that we will briefly run through:
:''See also, [[MAP Movement|Activist Interfaces]]''


*Question and answer sites.
*Social Media - if you have a following. For most users, social media is more suited to a responsive/trolling/sealioning technique, detailed [[Debate Guide: Social Media and Trolling|elsewhere]] on this guide.
*Open dictionaries or phrase definition sites, for example [http://urbandictionary.com UD].
*Question and answer sites. '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quora Quora] or Yahoo! Answers.'''
*Subreddits. Chansites.
*Open dictionaries or phrase definition sites, for example [http://urbandictionary.com Urban Dictionary].
*Open Wikis, some of which allow debate and creative writing.
*Open Wikis, some of which allow debate and creative writing.
*Video sharing sites such as [http://youtube.com YouTube], characterised by comment threads and ratings systems.
*Video sharing sites such as [http://youtube.com YouTube], characterized by comment threads and ratings systems.
*Blogging, Social Networking, Podcasting and various other individualistic methods of content management.
*Imageboards and [[Pediverse|Fediverse]] sites visited by adjacent communities, or disinterested allies.
*News comment threads on network and local media sites.
*Blogging, Podcasting and various other individualistic methods of content management.
*Make-your-own-news sites such as Slashdot and Indymedia.
*News Disqus/Comment threads on network and local media sites (increasingly rare)
*Make-your-own-news sites such as Slashdot.
*Commercial review sites such as [http://amazon.com Amazon].
*Commercial review sites such as [http://amazon.com Amazon].
*Email.
*Specialist groups such as academic fora (might be restricted by credentials) or [https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/ politics].


Deciding whether or not any of these venues are viable, is not a simple task. It involves a case-by-case assessment and often incorporates (albeit limited) concerns about security. You might like to discuss individual cases on our [http://newgon.com/forum forum].
Deciding whether or not any of these venues are viable is not a simple task. You must decide on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes entertain concerns about security (personal info, use of VPNs or [[Tor]]). You might like to discuss individual cases on our forum.


==Audiences==
==Audiences==


The web is a highly subdivided medium. People flock to areas dedicated to their interests and beliefs, meaning that the effects of certain arguments will differ, depending on the site and audience. For example, "child sexuality" is a widely accepted concept among scientists and mental health professionals, but denied by most religious fundamentalists. At the same time, regarding sexual contact between adults and minors, there is a shared "zero tolerance" orthodoxy between these groups. You should understand these similarities and differences, considering whether you are better equipped to refute arguments based on age (scientific-victimological) or immorality (religious-moralist) for example. You should also consider how receptive different groups are to any kind of dissenting message and the number of people participating in ''and viewing'' a debate. Remember that your opponent is not the primary audience for your arguments, so much so that (for example) a cleverly subverted book review on a website not known for debate may be just as effective. Also take into account the age of those viewing your arguments. As we are selling the future, not funeral-assurance products, the youth and open-mindedness of our audience is an important factor.
The web is a highly subdivided medium. Users tend to seek out communities that reinforce their pre-existing interests and beliefs, so the impact of certain arguments will differ, depending on the crowd. For example, "child sexuality" is a widely accepted concept among scientists and mental health professionals, but denied by most religious fundamentalists. At the same time, both of these groups oppose sex between adults and minors for similar reasons, deploying somewhat different arguments. You should understand these similarities and differences, considering whether you are better equipped to refute arguments with [[Bruce Rind|Rind-like]] (scientific) rebuttals to faux-objectivist [[victimology]], or perhaps more accustomed to social/moral arguments against assertions of "Invalidity" (from Social Justice) or "[[Degeneracy]]" (from Moralism). You should also consider the ratio of participants to passive viewers in a debate, remembering that your "debate opponent" is not actually your primary audience. For example, a cleverly subverted Amazon book review with no replies might be more effective and more visible than a discussion thread that will be buried in days. Also take into account the age and philosophical flexibility of those viewing your arguments; after all, we are selling our vision of the future and not a funeral plan. We will multiply our gains when our targets have 5-7 decades of participation in society ahead of them.
 
After numerous experiences involving Debate Guide contributors, it can be tentatively concluded that the following factors contribute towards open, engaging and worthwhile debates:
 
*'''A skeptical or at least knowledge-oriented community.'''
 
While it is virtually worthless to argue against an already largely sympathetic audience, inquisitive and skeptical minds are always more likely to take on new ideas. The Atheist, Rationalist, Alternative Lifestyle, Libertarian, Anarchist, Science, Technology and Anime communities have all shown relatively high degrees of receptivity to our arguments - but each has their own reactive tendencies that must be addressed.
 
*'''A reasonable degree of formality.'''
 
Your discussion medium should have as its ''purpose'', the discussion of serious issues in a formal and logical manner. When your audience have tuned in for the purpose of intellectual stimulation, they ''expect'' to see these arguments, and are less likely to see them as an imposition (trolling).
 
*'''An ethos of openness to newcomers.'''


After numerous experiences involving Debate Guide contributors, it can be tentatively concluded that the following audience factors tend to contribute towards an open, engaging and worthwhile debate:
Some communities are clique-y and self-referential. Assuming that you have no established identity on the website in question, you should generally avoid communities that are built around special interests and schisms within other communities. For example, one of our contributors was given death threats after signing up for what looked like a relatively innocuous freethought board. Sometimes admins may ban subversive accounts on sight. Do not waste time engaging with these people, take the loss and move on to a new target.


*A skeptical or at least knowledge-oriented community.
*'''A high turnover of contributors and viewers.'''


Whilst is is virtually worthless to argue against an audience who is already considerably sympathetic, inquisitive and skeptical minds are always more likely to take on new ideas. The Atheist, Rationalist, Alternative, Libertarian, Anarchist, Science, Technology and Anime communities have all shown relatively high degrees of receptivity to our arguments.
This makes selecting debate opponents, avoiding censorship, achieving visibility and completing debates on time a lot easier.


*A reasonable degree of formality.
==Topic strategy==


Your discussion medium should have as its ''purpose'', the discussion of serious issues in a formal and logical manner. People should be best-equipped to ''expect'' these arguments, thus not leading to the perception of an imposition.
Don't set yourself up for a loss:


*An ethos of openness to newcomers.
Drafting '''narrow parameters''' for debate, single issues and a "message oriented" approach will tend to moderate the discussion and keep it within manageable limits. This allows you to call out or ignore an opponent whenever they stray off topic. Even if you do decide to discuss fundamental issues such as concepts of sexuality, childhood and [[consent]], the debate should be set within fixed parameters. State from the very beginning what your position is and what you are willing to debate and argue for. And if you are going for the broadest possible coverage of topics, make sure that you are equipped with the knowledge and ability to argue your way out of numerous situations and refute numerous misrepresentations of your argument.


Some communities are highly clique-y and self-referential. Assuming that you have no established identity on the website in question, you should generally avoid communities that are built around special interests and schisms with other communities. For example, one of our contributors was given death threats after signing up for what looked like a relatively innocuous freethought board. Sometimes admins may ban subversive accounts on sight. Do not engage with these people.
Although any discussion of MAPs or related topics is likely to arouse a great deal of interest, an ideal opening post should start with a ''question'', not the imposition of a preconceived opinion. Questions are less offensive, more open and make people challenge their deepest held beliefs. The question should reflect back to ''your'' interests, and strengths in knowledge. Then perhaps ascribe a pointed opinion to a friend/other person and ask your viewers to digest and challenge it.


*A high turnover of contributions and viewers.
Exert as much subtle control over the debate as you possibly can. For example, if you have first hand experience of a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor, do not phrase your question "Pedophilia - Right or Wrong?". Instead of damaging your argument from the outset, ask an open question that engages people's moral and ethical relationships with the ''real world'', not concepts or stereotypes. For example, your question and thread title may read:


This makes selecting debate opponents, avoiding censorship, achieving decent coverage and completing debates a lot more easier.
<blockquote>''I wasn't abused. Can you convince me otherwise?''</blockquote>


==Questions and debating points==
In this case, you would already be fairly well set-up to win any argument that followed, as long as you do not come across as a liar, mentally ill cult member or push undue conclusions, trashing other lived examples "becuz muh eksperence". Compare your experience to [[Accounts and Testimonies|others]], to give it credibility and reinforcement, or perhaps invoke the experiences of a friend, by opening with the topic ''"My friend refuses to accept he was abused"'' and expanding:


Don't bite off more than you can chew. Drafting narrow parameters for debate, single issues and a "message oriented" approach will tend to moderate the discussion and keep it within manageable limits. This allows you to call an opponent whenever they stray off topic. Even if you do decide to discuss fundamental issues such as concepts of sexuality, childhood and consent, the debate should be set within fixed parameters. State from the very beginning what your position is and what you are willing to debate and argue for. And if you are going for the broadest possible coverage of topics, make sure that you are equipped with the knowledge and ability to argue your way out of numerous situations and refute numerous misrepresentations of your argument.
<blockquote>''I often struggle to argue against my friend, who always refers to his early sexual experiences with his teacher in a positive light. What I struggle with most is conceiving of any [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring|mechanism that would have caused him trauma]], given he was not forced and says he took part willingly!''</blockquote>


Although any discussion of "pedophilia" is likely to arouse a great deal of interest, an ideal opening post should start with a ''question'', not the imposition of a preconceived opinion. Questions are less offensive, more open and make people challenge their deepest held beliefs. The question should reflect ''your'' interests, and strengths in knowledge. Exert as much subtle control over the debate as you possibly can. For example, if you have first hand experience of a sexual relationship between an Adult and a Child, do not phrase your question "Pedophilia - Right or Wrong?". Instead of damaging your argument from the outset, ask an open question that engages people's moral and ethical relationships with the ''real world'', not concepts or stereotypes. For example, your question and thread title may read:
Another question to really get people thinking might be:


'''"The Sexual Predator who I loved: would you deny us?"'''
<blockquote>''Adult-minor "sex"? What is it even? When is it wrong?''</blockquote>


In this case, you would already be fairly well set-up to win any argument that followed, as long as you do not reach undue, set-in-stone conclusions on the simple basis of your own experiences.
Such a question should address what even constitutes "sex". Is it petting, caressing, fondling, kissing, oral or only penetration of the anus or vagina? What about nudity in the presence of a child - something that will probably divide mainstream Europeans from Americans? When confronted with the idea they may be "sexually abusing" their child according to other western cultures or their own, a parent's ability to reason and challenge ingrained dogmas may kick in.


Another question to really get people thinking may be:
===Tone===


'''"Adult-minor sensual touching. When does it become "sex"? When does it become "wrong"?"'''
You should take care not to cast yourself in too serious a light. Don't get angry with accusations, "try" too hard or come over as if you have a covert agenda. Arguments that sound overly apologetic are likely to lead others to believe that you are taking responsibility for child abusers, or are one yourself. Ideally, your agenda should be one of general intellectual curiosity and freethinking, unspoken because it shines through in an argument that is confident but not overly insistent and condemnatory of dissent. Respect the right to disagree, e.g. "I believe that voluntary sexual intimacy isn't inherently wrong and causes no damage to minors in and of itself. You don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it isn't supported by the facts." This confirms that you are the reasonable one, while the person arguing against you is the deranged bigot.


Such a question should be extended in your message to specifically ask what constitutes "sex". Is it petting, caressing, fondling, kissing, oral or only penetration of the anus or vagina? When confronted with the idea that what they are doing to their own child may be seen as "sexual abuse", a parent's ability to reason may kick in.
Prioritize philosophy over morality - unless you are defending yourself as a non-offending or upstanding "virtuous pedophile" for example. It is also conceivable that ridicule (of arguments, not opponents) could form an important and tension-easing part of your argument. There really is a lot to ridicule in the world of misguided "protect the children" slogans, but the validity of this as a tactic obviously depends on your audience.


Another tip is to ''pre - empt'' the arguments of others, when proposing a debate. This shows that you know the arguments you are about to face "all too well", and immediately puts the proponents of irrational dogma where they should be, on the "back foot". To further demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom, the pre - empted arguments should be ''accompanied with a counter argument''. You can find these counterarguments elsewhere in the guide, and hopefully in the spontaneous thoughts that it inspires.
===Pre-emption===


You should take care not to cast yourself in too serious a light. Don't kill yourself off by getting angry with accusations, generally "trying" too hard or effecting the general perception that you are hiding a covert agenda. Arguments that sound overly apologetic are likely to lead others to believe that you are taking responsibility for child abusers, or are one yourself. Ideally, your agenda should be one of general intellectual curiosity and freethinking, unspoken because it shines through in an argument that is confident but not overly insistent and condemnatory of dissent. Make philosophical objections and not personal or moral ones unless for example, you intend to defend yourself as a non-offending pedophile. At the same time, it is conceivable that ridicule (of arguments, not opponents) could form an important and tension-easing part of your argument. There really is a lot to ridicule in the world of misguided "protect the children" slogans, but the validity of this as a tactic obviously depends on your audience.
Another tip is to ''pre - empt'' the arguments of others, when proposing a debate. This shows that you are seasoned in refuting common arguments, and immediately puts the proponents of irrational dogma where they should be, on the "back foot". To further demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom, the pre-empted arguments should be ''accompanied with a counter argument''. You can find these counterarguments elsewhere in the guide, and hopefully in the spontaneous thoughts that it inspires.


===Noncommittal===
===Noncommittal===


Noncommittal can be a very powerful debating tool, if used correctly. The idea here is to cast doubt upon an opponent's argument by taking the inquisitive position of "undecided" as opposed to advocating your own hypothesis. A fundamental principle of arguing from a noncommittal standpoint is that you should not be expected to provide proof for simply failing to accept a hypothesis. The tactic can - in this sense, be used to put an opponent on the backfoot, as the burden of proof is on the advocate of said hypothesis. This tactic is however largely pointless if you can not or do not present contrarian arguments in a direct and pertinent style, or are not willing to tacitly defend them on multiple occasions, if they continue to cast doubt upon insufficient opposition arguments.
Noncommittal can be a very powerful debating tool, if used correctly. The idea is to cast doubt upon an opponent's argument by taking the inquisitive position of "undecided" as opposed to advocating your own hypothesis. A fundamental principle of arguing from a noncommittal standpoint is that you should not be expected to provide proof for simply failing to accept a hypothesis. The tactic can - in this sense, be used to put an opponent on the back-foot, as the burden of proof is on the advocate of any definite hypothesis that is subsequently postulated. This tactic is largely pointless if you do not suggest or point to known examples of contrarian arguments in a direct and pertinent style, and can not cast doubt on counterarguments without sounding like an apologist.


==Responding to others==
==Responding to others==


Defending your point of view from others and using faulty arguments as a basis for counter-attacks is an art in itself. For more information on this, please proceed to the [[Debate Guide|responding]] advice section.
Defending your point of view and using faulty arguments as a basis for counter-attacks is an art in its own right. For more information on this, please proceed to the advice sections on [[Debate Guide|responding]].


[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]


[[fr:Guide de débat: Démarrer un débat]]
[[fr:Guide de débat: Démarrer un débat]]

Latest revision as of 11:28, 18 March 2023

While Debate Guide maintains advice sections dealing with responses to arguments, the following advice page deals with starting debates. Although you will eventually have to respond to the flawed arguments of others, rebuttals are not the best way of starting a debate if you are either an established community member, or debating within a more intellectual forum. Here, we will explain how to go about proposing a debate on your own terms, and making your argument heard in high-brow debating venues.

Consider the impact of your advocacy before starting a debate. Your aim should be to make clear and striking facts available to curious and open minded readers, giving them the opportunity to undertake their own balanced research on the issues at hand before responding (if they decide to). So ask yourself how you will be contributing to public knowledge and the accuracy thereof.

Also remember that simply being "right" isn't good enough - and even among intellectuals, carefully disguised irrational devices can be persuasive.

Options

Be prepared...

With today's evolved internet, you have a veritable banquet of options open to you. While Debate Guide is aimed at a variety of discussion formats, the largest list of bulletin boards (our original focus) can be found on Wikipedia. There are still some other options that we will briefly run through:

See also, Activist Interfaces
  • Social Media - if you have a following. For most users, social media is more suited to a responsive/trolling/sealioning technique, detailed elsewhere on this guide.
  • Question and answer sites. Quora or Yahoo! Answers.
  • Subreddits. Chansites.
  • Open dictionaries or phrase definition sites, for example Urban Dictionary.
  • Open Wikis, some of which allow debate and creative writing.
  • Video sharing sites such as YouTube, characterized by comment threads and ratings systems.
  • Imageboards and Fediverse sites visited by adjacent communities, or disinterested allies.
  • Blogging, Podcasting and various other individualistic methods of content management.
  • News Disqus/Comment threads on network and local media sites (increasingly rare)
  • Make-your-own-news sites such as Slashdot.
  • Commercial review sites such as Amazon.
  • Specialist groups such as academic fora (might be restricted by credentials) or politics.

Deciding whether or not any of these venues are viable is not a simple task. You must decide on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes entertain concerns about security (personal info, use of VPNs or Tor). You might like to discuss individual cases on our forum.

Audiences

The web is a highly subdivided medium. Users tend to seek out communities that reinforce their pre-existing interests and beliefs, so the impact of certain arguments will differ, depending on the crowd. For example, "child sexuality" is a widely accepted concept among scientists and mental health professionals, but denied by most religious fundamentalists. At the same time, both of these groups oppose sex between adults and minors for similar reasons, deploying somewhat different arguments. You should understand these similarities and differences, considering whether you are better equipped to refute arguments with Rind-like (scientific) rebuttals to faux-objectivist victimology, or perhaps more accustomed to social/moral arguments against assertions of "Invalidity" (from Social Justice) or "Degeneracy" (from Moralism). You should also consider the ratio of participants to passive viewers in a debate, remembering that your "debate opponent" is not actually your primary audience. For example, a cleverly subverted Amazon book review with no replies might be more effective and more visible than a discussion thread that will be buried in days. Also take into account the age and philosophical flexibility of those viewing your arguments; after all, we are selling our vision of the future and not a funeral plan. We will multiply our gains when our targets have 5-7 decades of participation in society ahead of them.

After numerous experiences involving Debate Guide contributors, it can be tentatively concluded that the following factors contribute towards open, engaging and worthwhile debates:

  • A skeptical or at least knowledge-oriented community.

While it is virtually worthless to argue against an already largely sympathetic audience, inquisitive and skeptical minds are always more likely to take on new ideas. The Atheist, Rationalist, Alternative Lifestyle, Libertarian, Anarchist, Science, Technology and Anime communities have all shown relatively high degrees of receptivity to our arguments - but each has their own reactive tendencies that must be addressed.

  • A reasonable degree of formality.

Your discussion medium should have as its purpose, the discussion of serious issues in a formal and logical manner. When your audience have tuned in for the purpose of intellectual stimulation, they expect to see these arguments, and are less likely to see them as an imposition (trolling).

  • An ethos of openness to newcomers.

Some communities are clique-y and self-referential. Assuming that you have no established identity on the website in question, you should generally avoid communities that are built around special interests and schisms within other communities. For example, one of our contributors was given death threats after signing up for what looked like a relatively innocuous freethought board. Sometimes admins may ban subversive accounts on sight. Do not waste time engaging with these people, take the loss and move on to a new target.

  • A high turnover of contributors and viewers.

This makes selecting debate opponents, avoiding censorship, achieving visibility and completing debates on time a lot easier.

Topic strategy

Don't set yourself up for a loss:

Drafting narrow parameters for debate, single issues and a "message oriented" approach will tend to moderate the discussion and keep it within manageable limits. This allows you to call out or ignore an opponent whenever they stray off topic. Even if you do decide to discuss fundamental issues such as concepts of sexuality, childhood and consent, the debate should be set within fixed parameters. State from the very beginning what your position is and what you are willing to debate and argue for. And if you are going for the broadest possible coverage of topics, make sure that you are equipped with the knowledge and ability to argue your way out of numerous situations and refute numerous misrepresentations of your argument.

Although any discussion of MAPs or related topics is likely to arouse a great deal of interest, an ideal opening post should start with a question, not the imposition of a preconceived opinion. Questions are less offensive, more open and make people challenge their deepest held beliefs. The question should reflect back to your interests, and strengths in knowledge. Then perhaps ascribe a pointed opinion to a friend/other person and ask your viewers to digest and challenge it.

Exert as much subtle control over the debate as you possibly can. For example, if you have first hand experience of a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor, do not phrase your question "Pedophilia - Right or Wrong?". Instead of damaging your argument from the outset, ask an open question that engages people's moral and ethical relationships with the real world, not concepts or stereotypes. For example, your question and thread title may read:

I wasn't abused. Can you convince me otherwise?

In this case, you would already be fairly well set-up to win any argument that followed, as long as you do not come across as a liar, mentally ill cult member or push undue conclusions, trashing other lived examples "becuz muh eksperence". Compare your experience to others, to give it credibility and reinforcement, or perhaps invoke the experiences of a friend, by opening with the topic "My friend refuses to accept he was abused" and expanding:

I often struggle to argue against my friend, who always refers to his early sexual experiences with his teacher in a positive light. What I struggle with most is conceiving of any mechanism that would have caused him trauma, given he was not forced and says he took part willingly!

Another question to really get people thinking might be:

Adult-minor "sex"? What is it even? When is it wrong?

Such a question should address what even constitutes "sex". Is it petting, caressing, fondling, kissing, oral or only penetration of the anus or vagina? What about nudity in the presence of a child - something that will probably divide mainstream Europeans from Americans? When confronted with the idea they may be "sexually abusing" their child according to other western cultures or their own, a parent's ability to reason and challenge ingrained dogmas may kick in.

Tone

You should take care not to cast yourself in too serious a light. Don't get angry with accusations, "try" too hard or come over as if you have a covert agenda. Arguments that sound overly apologetic are likely to lead others to believe that you are taking responsibility for child abusers, or are one yourself. Ideally, your agenda should be one of general intellectual curiosity and freethinking, unspoken because it shines through in an argument that is confident but not overly insistent and condemnatory of dissent. Respect the right to disagree, e.g. "I believe that voluntary sexual intimacy isn't inherently wrong and causes no damage to minors in and of itself. You don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it isn't supported by the facts." This confirms that you are the reasonable one, while the person arguing against you is the deranged bigot.

Prioritize philosophy over morality - unless you are defending yourself as a non-offending or upstanding "virtuous pedophile" for example. It is also conceivable that ridicule (of arguments, not opponents) could form an important and tension-easing part of your argument. There really is a lot to ridicule in the world of misguided "protect the children" slogans, but the validity of this as a tactic obviously depends on your audience.

Pre-emption

Another tip is to pre - empt the arguments of others, when proposing a debate. This shows that you are seasoned in refuting common arguments, and immediately puts the proponents of irrational dogma where they should be, on the "back foot". To further demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom, the pre-empted arguments should be accompanied with a counter argument. You can find these counterarguments elsewhere in the guide, and hopefully in the spontaneous thoughts that it inspires.

Noncommittal

Noncommittal can be a very powerful debating tool, if used correctly. The idea is to cast doubt upon an opponent's argument by taking the inquisitive position of "undecided" as opposed to advocating your own hypothesis. A fundamental principle of arguing from a noncommittal standpoint is that you should not be expected to provide proof for simply failing to accept a hypothesis. The tactic can - in this sense, be used to put an opponent on the back-foot, as the burden of proof is on the advocate of any definite hypothesis that is subsequently postulated. This tactic is largely pointless if you do not suggest or point to known examples of contrarian arguments in a direct and pertinent style, and can not cast doubt on counterarguments without sounding like an apologist.

Responding to others

Defending your point of view and using faulty arguments as a basis for counter-attacks is an art in its own right. For more information on this, please proceed to the advice sections on responding.