Thanks I guess. But I think its apparent that I have too much free time.

I'm not at my usual computer and may not respond on that thread very soon but then again I might respond by tommorow.

Thanks for moving the conversation.

__________________
The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.

- Proud Israel supporter -

BlindArtist326@netscape.net

The comments have drifted a bit far afield. Can we get back to ideas for being more persuasive and doing better debate?

__________________
epaphras_faith

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

1. Don't allow yourself to get angry or perturbed--realize that losing an argument is distinct from getting your hindquarters screwed.
2. Don't prevent yourself from getting angry merely by minimizing the evil of what your opponent is arguing for--better to be angry than to have compromised the truth.
3. If you are not angry merely as a result of a conscious resolution not to be so, and if the people you are arguing against are likely disgusting abusive types, nevertheless be true in tone and manner to the angry emotions you are trying to avoid. This will have two effects. First, the people trying to unsettle you will go totally ballistic because they will think they can win by unsettling your emotions, and they will look totally ridicuous in the process. Second, the decent people who read your post will respect you more because screwed-up people tend to be excessively laid-back.

The abolitionist Wendell Phillips (often considered the greatest orator of the 19th-century) was the master of these techniques. In one famous speech, after every time he pronounced the name of his opponent he would pause to get a glass of water, then to swish his mouth out and spit.

As for how to be convincing when arguing with people who are basically decent and reasonable, I'd say offhand that there's not much you can do except to have interesting opinions, preferably presented with well-reasoned interesting arguments.

So you are saying that an interesting argument will carry more weight with the listener even if it is logically flawed compared to an uninteresting logically correct argument?

__________________
epaphras_faith

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

It seems to me that people care too much about 'what side you are on.'

I am not sure where I see this is revelent. It seems the only reason to know this is to see if the other person is on the same side as you are, and if they are not, then attack them. Isn't a good point a good point no matter whose 'side they are on?'

Along the same lines, too much emphasis is put on trying to 'win' arguments, instead of trying to learn something. That is why, I believe, as was stated before, that nobody ever convinces anyone of anything. Most people are just out to win arguments, instead of trying to learn.

Very good technique, mine if I use it?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

are any of you on policy debate at school, or is this just for being persuasive in general?

Post as you like. I used to policy debate when I was in school. I also did value debate. The idea though, is mostly what is persuasive to people.

__________________
epaphras_faith

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

I think the best way to be persuasive is to know what you are talking about. If you post a reasonable argument based on true facts, it will force people to think about what you have said. Even if you were not "persuasive" in the sense that you changed someone's mind, you will still force them to study their position so they can explain it in response.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Loaded questions.

__________________
After all , mankind was not meant to be ruled by religion, but rather guided by it. - Originally posted by Sincity on [URL=http://www.portent.net][i]Portent[/i][/URL]

"A skeptic is someone who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street." - Jim Loy

When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun? - The Clash

easily recognized, poor strategy.

__________________
epaphras_faith

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

I believe the Socratic method is the most persuasive. I find that asking leading questions will often bring the other person to acknowledge my position. Also, understanding the philosophy of one's own position is vital.

My first post!

Few people who are experienced conversationalists or debaters will respond to leading questions. They normally mean the speaker is light on knowledge and seeking to glean other opinions before making a statement. Open questions, yes.

The only way to intelligently converse or debate from a position of persuasion is to have a solid understanding of all facets of an issue. And not media level knowledge. You should be able to debate all sides of an issue from any viewpoint. That's how you arrive at sound personal opinions based on facts, not non-marxist ideology.

Americans are very prone to taking 'sides' on issues based purely on emotion, not reason. This serves our politicians very well and allows them to make gross policy errors and favor special interests by repeatedly waving the flag. Unfortunately, many people then sound as stupid as our politicians when quoting political rhetoric.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

Very funny stuff.