Destroy the Argument vs. Building up Your Own?

When it comes to speech and debate, there are certain methods you can take to assure a "victory" when it comes to bringing your opinion to be stated as superior (although this is uncommon here in OTC it is probably very common elsewhere where opinions are more conflicting than others and the discussion base is less likely to be inclined to agree with one another).

Which path is usually the best to take when trying to get a point across. Is it best to point out why the other speaker is wrong, through the use of pointing out fallacies and contradictions in their statements and presentation, and proving that their argument is less than what they are saying, or creating bullet-proof arguments of your own and explaining why your idea or statement is better?

Alpha Parum est esse aliquid.

I'd say that they can be one in the same, although it is necessary to have a defined belief of your own.

Let's say that two people are arguing about how salsa gets in sealed jars. The first person believes that it is sneezed in by the flying pig people of newsplixia, while the second believes nothing and knows nothing. There is nothing wrong with the fact that the second has nothing to argue for, and yet there they are, attacking the opposition.

Not having a belief of your own does not prevent you from spotting error.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

One technique that, I believe, is often useful is to attack your own argument. That is, after having summarized your own position and the arguments to its favor, attempt to raise the most common objections to it, reporting them as accurately as you can, and give your answer to them.

This shows the "opponent" that you have given due thought to the issue, and that you are familiar with the most common arguments in favor and against your beliefs. Furthermore, it has the advantage to shorten the "opening moves" of a debate, especially if the topic has been often discussed in precedence - religious threads, anyone?

With some luck, this should allow the discussion to move relatively quickly to original arguments or to corrections of misapprehensions about the other side's reasons, both of which are likely going to be more instructive and entertaining than, say, yet another badly mangled version of Ockham's razor or of the Trascendental argument.

On the minus side, this might make one sound wordy and perhaps a little smug; but the latter is easily corrected by pointing out, somewhere in one's own argument, that it is possible that he or she might have misunderstood the other side's position or arguments, and that corrections are welcome, and the former, I believe, is not a problem as long as you keep redundancy at a minimum.

Finally, one major drawback on this method is that it may take a long time to compose even a basic argument with it. That's true, and for minor discussions it is probably not worth it to adopt it - but if the topic is one that is close to one's heart, then I would argue that not saying anything would be preferable to compose a badly prepared argument which could end up even driving people away from one's favored position - not that I have always followed this advice myself, of course.

At least, I think that this method has some advantages when it comes to giving valuable contributions to a debate; but I may be wrong, of course, and I welcome objections.

edited 7th Apr '11 1:35:27 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

This one tends to have her own argument constructed during discussion - meaning that her initial idea is somewhat vague, if intense and sincere, and the fine points are defined due to severe poking and trashing of my argument by opponent. Does not mean that I construct it specifically to answer an opponent - now that would be a sophistic dishonesty! Far from it. Thing is, I did not even think of this or that side of opinion before. Once defined, the point stands the same. So by necessity the conversation starts with attacking an opponent's argument, with my own being made bullet-proof (or destroyed, as it happens often) as the bullets come.

edited 7th Apr '11 5:06:13 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Carciofus: No, you are correct, at the least in my interprention of it.
Discreditting your own argument is the best way of debating, because it also closes holes that people could start attacking.

My further interprention is: Debating via only attacking is silly, because you have no "position", and hence it is worthless. All someone needs to do to "kill" that way of debating is just to ask for the position.
Debating via only building would mean that you need others to attack yours, otherwise you can't debate.
I guess that is equally useless.
But the most important thing to remember is that most politicans can't "debate" for the worth of their life. They can spew out words and create confusion, but they can't actually share ideas and merge them against each other in a way where there could be a conclusion.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

It depends on whether you prefer to win or to be right.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I dunno if this is the case. Suppose that someone is arguing about something concerning which I have no knowledge - say, suppose that he claims to have shown that P=NP. Even though I have no "position" in this matter , if I think I have noticed a flaw in his proof, I am perfectly allowed to attack his statement.

edited 7th Apr '11 6:45:03 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Carciofus

The problem of course being, it's easy to throw up a strawman rather than a real argument. Or for your opponent to claim that's not an objection they ever had. Or to be accused of strawmanning even if it isn't. In order for this to work, you need to find the strongest arguments you know of against your position, and rebut those.

@ Beholderess

I'd agree with this, except remove the "intense and sincere" and replace it with "intense desire to learn more about the subject, and a sincere wish to have a strong opinion/belief."

Going into an argument with a strong, unsupported belief is an easy way to hit confirmation bias and the like. I try to refrain from having strong beliefs until I feel like I know a reasonable amount about the subject.

As for why one over the other, I'll say what I said in the thread about fixing things vs. getting rid of them entirely- making things is hard, destroying them is easy.

Personally I think both are equally valid, though you'll want to avoid doing strictly one or the other. Just destroying all the time makes you look like a vitriolic jerk, and just posting your opinion often goes unnoticed/repeats things others have already said.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

A fine sentiment! This one can admire that.

However, this one is unlikely to get in an argument over something she does not have intense belief about in the first place. About such issues, this one would rather lurk and listen. And few people know and admit that their belief is unfounded before getting into argument.

Anyway, there is some value in tearing down an opponent's argument even without offering your own. This one has no idea about what's the best way to clip a broken nail but is reasonably sure that "chainsaw" is not an answer=).

But still, this one rarely argues to "win". Mostly to develop one's own argument and to prevent myself from having misconceptions about what is an actual position of opposing side is. So the few ways this one likes to lead an argument by do not help to "win" it - only to make it more clear and manageable. Establishing a clear premise that for the sake of argument is not changed or questioned, trying to find the root of disagreement or trying to see if one's position is defensible using an opponent's premise, for example.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Carciofus: Then he is present a concept, not debating.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

Depends, honestly.

While this will seem slightly...cheaty...

Only try to destroy the argument if you can. Build up your own when you can't say anything that will make the position appear unpleasant.

Basically, if you can make them look bad, make them look bad. If you can't, just make yourself look better by comparison.

Read my stories!

: What do you do if they start pointing out that you are not debating, but here for for winning a silly discussion, and then give you enough time to do it properly?

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.