"Tricks of the trade" or How to debate effectively

[Eriol]

Well, the Tournament is at an end. We are planning some intra-Guild debates, and some non-Tournament debates with other Guilds. And that is FUN :).

This thread is supposed to be about the "tricks of the trade". How to debate effectively. I'd love if people from other Guilds would post their opinions here... a workbook with contribution from great debaters from all over TTF would be great :).

I'll begin the action by addressing a kind of debate that is very common (or at least was in the Tournament). The "Was it right..." debate. Many topics had that question, or a similar question, in mind. I've seen some debates in which a whole "mode" of treating this question was neglected... and the neglected mode varied in many debates.

So, how are the modes in which one might deal with such a question?

An ethical question, addressed at "Right/Wrong" issues, is quite unlike a debate that is (supposedly) empirical, like "Who gave the greatest contribution to the Downfall of Sauron, Arnor or Gondor?". There are three and only three (as far as I can see) ways to treat such a debate; two of them are more promising, the third (in my opinion) is less convincing.

(1) The "natural rights" option
(2) The "utilitarian" option
(3) The "fatalist" option

Let me discuss each in a bit more detail.

(1) Natural rights. This option is directed at the rightness/wrongness of the act under discussion, taken in itself, without any reference to consequences. It is, in my opinion, the strongest line of attack to pursue. If you can prove that an act is good in itself, or bad in itself, you have a very good case.

For instance. There was a debate about "whether Treebeard was right to release Saruman". Was Treebeard right in his act of releasing Saruman, without regard for consequences? To address such a question we'd have to examine

(a) Treebeard's claim for authority in dealing with the matter
(b) Treebeard's given word (to Gandalf) regarding how long he'd keep watch over Saruman
(c) Treebeard's estimate of the consequences (which is quite unlike the consequences proper)
(d) The goodness of the act itself (an act of mercy, or the act of a dummy persuaded by Saruman?)

By taking into account all of these factors we could establish whether the act was (a) good in the eyes of Treebeard and (b) good in itself. If we could establish or deny (b), our case is very strong.

(2) The utilitarian option. This focus at the question, "were the consequences of the act good?". Utilitarian ethics are instable in that they are greatly dependent on contingent matters. Taking that example above: it could be said that Saruman only decided to head to the Shire after meeting the hobbits on the road (he says so to the hobbits, at the Shire). How could one blame Treebeard for this consequence then? How could one say that Treebeard was wrong in releasing Saruman?

It is, in my opinion, less clear than the previous option. But it is still a very strong line of argument; especially if the qualities of the consequences (good or bad) can be easily established. If you can number a great deal of easily ascertainable good (or bad) consequences of a given act -- AND establish the causal link (quite important) -- you have a great case.

Many if not most "ethical" debates followed this path, I think... at least those that I followed closely. Perhaps I'm prejudiced in thinking that the natural rights approach is more convincing :). Of course, debates have a great deal of room for persuasion and rhetoric, and not always the best argument wins.

(3) The fatalist approach. This is especially "functional" in Tolkien's legendarium, which has a clear Deity that is openly stated to control History. Nothing happens against the will of Eru that can't be turned to good. This sentence can be easily interpreted as "everything that happens is according to Eru's will" (I would argue violently against that :D. But I see that it CAN be interpreted as such.)

The fatalist approach in Tolkien debates, unlike the others, is biased to Good. You can't say that a given act was "bad" when following the third approach. You would be denying Eru's sovereignty and Goodness.

But it can be used as a supporting argument if you are upholding the "it was good" position. It is weak in some debates, a bit stronger in others... it depends on the topic. In our example, to claim that Treebeard was right in releasing Saruman because Eru had foreseen it and it was therefore good would be a weak line of argument (in my opinion). When you take larger questions, such as "was Frodo right in sparing Gollum's life" (not a Tournament question, but a very well-known example), the fatalist approach is more useful.

The fatalist approach runs counter to the free-will theme. It is open to criticism on that account. When the opponent takes the fatalist position, usually a cogent defense of free will is liable to weaken his position enough for debating purposes.

Ok, I said enough already. Let's improve our debating, people :). Share your views on debating here. We have other kinds of debate, other views on what I said here...

[Manveru]

Well... from my second debate (which was a lousy one from my part) I learnt two things: not to use 'selective' quoting (the opponents will 'throw you down to earth' very quickly with that;)) and to keep my 'stingy' tongue behind 'bars' at times:p:D. Some experience, eh?

I don't think I can 'teach' anything concerning debates, but I like the idea. It has already cleared my view on 'how to debate effectively?' topic.

Thx, Eriol.

Waiting for other "tips" for "greenies"...

[Eledhwen]

Excellent thread topic.:cool:

There is another complication in debating "Good" and "Bad": in that there is no universal definition. One person's "good" is another person's "bad". Until Judaic Law filtered around the world (often via Christianity), "good" was what served oneself, and "bad" was anything doing the opposite. The 'Pax Romana' (Roman Peace) for instance, was often upheld by simply wiping out any person, family or tribe who became annoying (including incumbent Caesars). This meant there was no universal concept of 'evil' (and it still isn't universal); the nearest you got to it was empathy. This angle is rarely explored in debates, mainly because the Judeo-Christian standards (if not the faiths themselves) are taken as read.

[Eriol]

Hehe. I think we should be thankful that the matter of the definition of Good is not brought up in the debates... They would become mile-length threads if this was discussed there. My own opinion about this is that Good (and Evil) is undefinable in a non-theistic environment. If we were to define Good in a debate we would have to arbitrarily pick a definition... and hope that the other side accepts it.

Though, in Tolkien's world, Good must be defined as Eru's will. As Eru's "personality", so to speak; that's "Goodness". This is not a "working concept", since it is only known in retrospect, in most cases. Frodo could not know that he was following Eru's will when he spared Gollum. There was a good (utilitarian) case for killing him.

Frodo could suspect as much, but he could not prove to his satisfaction in a dialectic debate that not killing Gollum was the right thing to do. "Intuition" (a word used to denote all things we do not know about :p) was working there. And it is important to note that "Eru's will" is NOT an utilitarian concept. The sparing of Gollum's life is NOT right "because it ended well, in the destruction of the Ring"; it is right because it is merciful, and mercy is loved by Eru. The matter of the consequences of mercy is out of the agent's hands; Frodo could and should not take the consequences of his act into consideration. That's Eru's task :). The fact that Eru usually works so that good acts have good rewards is not important to the establishment of whether a given act was good or not. Because if Eru decided that a given good act would not have a good result, it would not detract from the goodness of the act itself... mostly because "the rewards" are sometimes only given out at the end of history. We should not criticize the Author before the story is over ;).

Frodo would have been right even if Sauron had won.

This is how I see Goodness in Arda :).

As far as "debate tactics" go, then, I think that questioning the nature of Good is... messy :D. It is hard to do. Most likely it will not sound interesting to the judges (ah, the matter of "what sounds interesting to the judges" is very important...). It will not reach any firm, established conclusion.

Personally, I would only try that as a diversionary tactic, if I thought I was losing the debate :D.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by Eriol
I think that questioning the nature of Good is... messy :D. It is hard to do. Most likely it will not sound interesting to the judges (ah, the matter of "what sounds interesting to the judges" is very important...). It will not reach any firm, established conclusion.

Personally, I would only try that as a diversionary tactic, if I thought I was losing the debate :D. HeHe!

Having followed a few debates, the thing I noticed most was that when someone produced an argument the opposition couldn't counter, they sometimes ignored it by (for example) posting fresh arguments in the place where the counter or riposte should have been. When judging, I would count an unchallenged point as being won (using a boxing parallel, it's like a punch that was not blocked).

Another tactic is the politician's answer, where a counter argument basically beats about the bush* without really answering the point made. That's like flinging punches wide of the mark. A good judge will dock points for hot air.

*This phrase comes from the employment of beaters at a pheasant shoot. The beaters beat the undergrowth with sticks to flush out the pheasants. If they "beat about the bush", the pheasant inside the bush remains safe.

[celebdraug]

Well, i was wondering if i could take part in some of the debetes. (prefebrbally the intra-Guild debates). i just want to practice first..!

And i want to thank Manveru for building up my confidence!
Don't you worry so much. When I started my first debate and saw them in action... well, at first a little "headache" is as certain as the fact that sun rises in the east. But I managed somehow and you can do it, too. Our Guild Master, Kingy GG, will arrange some debates with other guilds as well as there are going to be "within-guild" debates. So, there will be plenty of chances to "practise" (and maybe to become perfect?).
Thankyou!;)

[Gil-Galad]

As I have mentioned several times so far,after the official end of The Debate Tournament,some debates bewteen members of The Guild of Tolkienology will be started.What is more I every month there will be a kind of "big" debate with some of the other Guilds.

Probably the most important reason for all these debates will be the need we have to improve our debating skills.The Tournament for 2004 will be started in several months and I hope we will manage to prepare ourselves for it.

Of course everybody is invited to participate.It is made for all members ;)!!

And one small note celebdraug,please next time post things concerning debates,debating etc. in "The Great Debates Matters":) ;)

[Manveru]

Originally posted by celebdraug
And i want to thank Manveru for building up my confidence!

Thankyou!;)
Anytime, celebdraug.

I'm usually around... (to mess around;))

:D

[Eriol]

Can I quote your last post on the thread about judging in the Debating Society, Eledhwen?

Of course, I'd like it even more if you went there and gave your opinion :). But if you don't feel like it, I'd at least like to quote your ideas.

Thanks :)

[Scatha]

There of course is always approach number 4:

Take a lenghty look at a post made by the opposition and slowly tear the fabric of it apart. I picked a nice number of opponents posts apart in the tournament, which allowed my teammates to start building our post from there. This is a stall tactic, while the other teammembers find the correct material to destroy the initial post with. ;)