That's easy. Pick the "con" side; con wins two out of three times. That's because the very structure of debate favors the audacious attacker, no matter what the subject.
Pity the poor person who's job it is to defend what he thought was an unassailable eternal truth. Let's say he's defending the idea that we should love our mothers. As the attacker you casually ask why. The rattled defender, rattled because he's not used to hearing the idea questioned, awkwardly replies that mothers earn the love by doing so many favors for their children. "Oh, I see", says the attacker, "So in your opinion, favors buy love. Love is something that you can buy and sell, like apples." The defender winces and starts to wish that he were somewhere else.
The attacker takes out a dollar bill and asks; "Would you love me if I gave you a dollar?" The audience howls with derisive laughter. The debate's only just started and the defender's already lost.
But we all know that loving your mother is a good thing, whether we can prove it in debate or not. So why is debate such a horrible way to discuss some issues?
It seems to me that debate fails because it gives too much weight to the attacker. It's just too easy to make the other guy look like a monkey, especially if he's not as funny as you, and not as inclined to exaggerate common ideas til they sound crazy.
Add to that the fact that the defender's burdened with defending every real-world decision his people ever made, going back to the days before he was born. The attacker, on the other hand, can argue from a Utopian idea that's never been tried, and therefore has never been found wanting. In debate both views have equal weight.
Of course sometimes attackers are right, which is one reason that we still need debates.
14 comments:
Folks, he's absolutely right. This is the number one most influential theory I ever got from this blog, and that's saying a lot. Learning this has influenced almost every academic decision I've made, and many personal matters.
I was skeptical about this at first. I boldly stated that I could defend something as well as anyone could attack it.
Eddie asked me to defend the idea that motherly love is a good thing, and then he tore my defense to shreds. Easily. I was a floored!
Do yourself a favour, everyone, and just take Eddie's word for it. You'll find yourself looking at every argument from a new angle.
For example, instead of trying to convince people that we should do x instead of y now, I attack the idea of y and attack the idea that x is bad. I don't defend x, I attack the attack of x.
It sounds like the rhetorical equivalent of splitting a plank to demonstrate one's mastery of karate, using only wood grain parallel to the hand striking it.
I beg to differ.
Just because.
You're a ten time double.
Jorge: Wow! That's a great compliment! And the new tactic sounds like it would work!
Anon: Wood grain? So that's how they do that!
Hans: What's a ten time double?
Personally I'd like to hear more debates from your bevy of girl philosophers, Eddie. We haven't seen those lovely Einsteinettes in ages!
10 (2x)
If a debate were to merely become a name calling match, running the dozens whatever, where personal attacks are used rather than attacking the other sides points...
You're ugly!
Oh yeah, well You're Ten times double ugly!
That is, it is a rather weak riposte that multiplies and reverses the attack.
Needless to say, I have never won a formal debate.
Arguments, perhaps. And in the first grade, there seemed to be fights for the sake of fighting, starting with name calling, ending in fisticuffs. But I remember no real ill will in the least, it was just a habitual energy, someone picking a fight with me and my playing along.
Ha! You could apply this to the people currently protesting the NY Post cartoon right now.
Great post, Uncle Ed.
I have my secrets for success. Never lost a debate yet.
Jorge, I challenge you to a debate. I could defend child pornography and win.
Whenever yer ready, Ace.
- trevor.
hahaha Trevor.
I like to attack wasteful government spending, intrusion into our privacy, the arbitrary creation and manipulation of money by the Federal Reserve, and the erosion of our civil liberties. I would be delighted to debate on these subjects at any time, now that I have the ultimate strategy!!!
Speaking of the FED, how would you like to see it audited? Wouldn't you like to know what they've been doing with our money and who it's been given to? They allow our representatives access to SOME information . . . but never the most important stuff. If you want Congress to Audit the Federal Reserve, please support Ron Paul's H.R. 1207 by calling (202) 224-3121, and asking your representative to co-sponsor the bill.
This message has been brought to you by http://www.campaignforliberty.com
Kelly, will you marry me?
Sorry, Jorge, Justin Toon beat you to the punch ;) Now he is the one privileged enough to endure my rants against the State every day :p
now that I have the ultimate strategy!!!
I wouldn't call this "the ultimate strategy". I've seen this online before. Whenever the one side attacks the attack of 'x', the other side then just attacks the attack of the attack of 'x' say something like "they have to attack us because they know they can't defend their side." And, of course, many of these 'attacks of attacks' utilize alot of strawman arguments and try to paint the other side as irrational and ridiculous. Hell, I'll admit that that's exactly what my Censor Monkeys do >;)
All of this of course causes everyone to stray from the issue at hand which could seem like a victory or a defeat, depending which side you're on.
it seems to be that you're missing the point of attacking. the point of attacking is to win. not to attack an attack. if some one attacks, they must defend. period. if you have an offense so well that you kill before they can defend, why worry about a defense?
Post a Comment