THIS IS NOT HOW YOU DEBATE. What you listed is a list of logical fallacies. A good debater will know when you try and use one and it'll completely throw out your argument. Logical fallacies, however, are used by the media and against those who are not aware of the fallacies. Government uses fallacies like ad hominem aka the wikieaks guy accused of "rape" so they can have the general uneducated public succumb to believing that his character is bad, therefore the argument is invalid.
I would warn you against making your opponent angry, merely because if this is a professional debate your talking about, a judge will see through that. It doesn't look professional when you start attacking the arguer instead of the arguments, and by doing so, you set yourself up for your opponent to start using the same tricks. =) Just some friendly advice.
I can't be arsed watching more of the video, so are you going to turn around at the end and say how you think this is a horrible list, or do you actually believe this is a good set of tactics to propagate?
I could have reduced it to one point: be fucking right.
who the fuck is this unfathomable inquiry,this is the second time ive seen him comment on a vid about debate..get a fucking life,...your making no sense you sad little piece of shit!
This is entirely nonsensical. What is the intention behind attempting to win a debate? Are you insecure with you beliefs that you need to convince your opponent? Do you feel threatened?
Become a fucking man. You have two ears but one tongue, so listen twice as much as you fucking speak.
I have enough of an inner stronghold that I do not need to debate or win a debate. My opinions are valueable and aren't for sale! I have no need for such nonsense, such rubbish!
Very good tips bro! In your own opinion, what sholud the gov't must do in order to win the war in afganistan except from outreach program of military and some sectors of the state. Should we need to review the protocols and procedures applied by the government?
Olympusssound has it right. It is impossible to argue with well presented Truth. Lawyers use it in court when questioning. "Isn't it true that the car was not yours?" etc.
very helpful, thank you very much. Debating is dramatic, and you have to recognize logical fallacies to recognize what is false. Thank you again, you were very genorous to sharing your tips.
You are not teaching debate but evasion, manipulation, and cheap rhetorical tricks-like teaching someone to cheat on a test.
Instead of encouraging one to be a critical thinker and to debate logically you are teaching one to use logically fallacies, e.g., Straw Man Fallacy, etc.
the point of a debate should be to find the truth, not to impose a belief on to someone. both sides should have the common goal to find out what is right. not acnologing opposing aguments when there is a valid point being made is unproductive. the purpose should be to gain understanding, not to win just to take control
Any person that you debate whose not an idiot will see right through all these cheap tricks, you're not really winning the debate with these tips, you're just pulling a fast one.
I totally agree and even if you do 'win', any intelligent person will realise he's been conned after thinking about it later. Also, if you do it on video, others will see your 'fake' points for what they are.
Oh my... It is a strategy of obtaining power by appealing to the gut feelings of the public, usually by powerful use of rhetoric and propaganda; in other words, demagogy.
You'd never win an argument with a scholar like that. : (
This is NOT a guide on how to win a debate. It's a list of fallacies that may be employed to trick your opponent and the audience into thinking you have won. Employing such tactics does not prove whatever point you are trying to make, it only aims to create a fog of deception so thick that piercing it becomes hopelessly tiresome.
When I watched the political debates, it was obvious who had tricks they were pulling, by not answering questions and turning anything around to whatever they want to talk about. I didn't like or trust any of the candidates who turned things around, rather than just honestly answering the questions (like Ron Paul). If you don't have good honest, truthful facts, you have to resort to tricks, I suppose.
I think the way to truly "win" a debate is not to use these (underhanded) tactics yourself, but to familiarize yourself with them enough that you can stop your OPPONENT from getting away with them. I have a feeling the list was an attempt at sarcasm.
Essentially what I'm saying is that if you try to pull any of this crap with someone who actually knows how to debate, you're going to get your ass handed to you, only to walk away embarassed.
Well some may be defined as fallacious but the main point in a debate is to win. If you consider it to be by any means necessary then some of these are good tips, however it was the first time I read through this list and some I dont agree with. The list is by Schopenhauer.
Yeah, just because I think they're fallacious doesn't mean that I don't use them, or at least try to. They work very well against people who like to speak before they think and are angered and/or confused easily also (which happens to be a lot of the people I get in arguments with for some reason).
I would just say use with caution because if you're going up against an experienced debater, it could look like you're trying to pull a cheap trick. It wasn't anything personal against the goldengun, I managed to watch the rest of the video and thought it was pretty interesting.
Oh I didnt take it personal, I was just pointing out my perspective. I think it may be more of a post-modern view of debating. I havent used any of these yet but it seems like it would be somewhat helpful in winning a debate.
Only listened to the first ten but they all seem to be straw man arguments. Helpful if you wish to argue with somebody unaccustomed to critical argumentation but doesn't really solve any issues, merely attempts to confuse. On the other hand, most arguments regarding entrenched political and/or religious views aren't meant to persuade one's opponent but are used to express one's beliefs and present them as superior in comparison to your antagonists to onlookers.
This is more like "How To Be a Troll."
josh3658edwards 5 months ago
THIS IS NOT HOW YOU DEBATE. What you listed is a list of logical fallacies. A good debater will know when you try and use one and it'll completely throw out your argument. Logical fallacies, however, are used by the media and against those who are not aware of the fallacies. Government uses fallacies like ad hominem aka the wikieaks guy accused of "rape" so they can have the general uneducated public succumb to believing that his character is bad, therefore the argument is invalid.
PancakePlease 7 months ago
This is more like how to be a lawyer...
PhoenixPhire22 7 months ago
Mate, can you post a link to where you are reading the points from?
warhammer40th 11 months ago
what site?
idapwnone 1 year ago
@idapwnone
usbible[dot]com/Links/38WaystoWin2[dot]asp[dot]html
yoyuepz 11 months ago
You stumble over words; stubble is the hair on your face.
bozzutoman 1 year ago
what ever happened to powerpoint? this is so confusing... you want to give people tips? PROVIDE A VISUAL!!!!!!!!
kurtlatchman 1 year ago
I would warn you against making your opponent angry, merely because if this is a professional debate your talking about, a judge will see through that. It doesn't look professional when you start attacking the arguer instead of the arguments, and by doing so, you set yourself up for your opponent to start using the same tricks. =) Just some friendly advice.
PhilosCaelum 1 year ago
What he is reading out loud is a guide from
Arthur Schopenhauer called : 8 Ways to Win an Argument.\
MrWilosie 1 year ago
I can't hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sagarhoormila 1 year ago
I can't hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sagarhoormila 1 year ago
I can't hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sagarhoormila 1 year ago
I can't be arsed watching more of the video, so are you going to turn around at the end and say how you think this is a horrible list, or do you actually believe this is a good set of tactics to propagate?
I could have reduced it to one point: be fucking right.
Marcus21999 1 year ago
I would say if your honest about your claim... then you will always win in the end
Averilli1 2 years ago
who the fuck is this unfathomable inquiry,this is the second time ive seen him comment on a vid about debate..get a fucking life,...your making no sense you sad little piece of shit!
JimmyPageProject 2 years ago
Give us the link. ya fanny
mikeyglennon 2 years ago
This is entirely nonsensical. What is the intention behind attempting to win a debate? Are you insecure with you beliefs that you need to convince your opponent? Do you feel threatened?
Become a fucking man. You have two ears but one tongue, so listen twice as much as you fucking speak.
I have enough of an inner stronghold that I do not need to debate or win a debate. My opinions are valueable and aren't for sale! I have no need for such nonsense, such rubbish!
unfathomableinquiry 2 years ago
dishonesty , lying,evasion and your a christian ..........Proof of christians creating more atheists every day.
pamor25 2 years ago
Very good tips bro! In your own opinion, what sholud the gov't must do in order to win the war in afganistan except from outreach program of military and some sectors of the state. Should we need to review the protocols and procedures applied by the government?
hakawaija 2 years ago
Olympusssound has it right. It is impossible to argue with well presented Truth. Lawyers use it in court when questioning. "Isn't it true that the car was not yours?" etc.
enoshthecat 2 years ago
very helpful, thank you very much. Debating is dramatic, and you have to recognize logical fallacies to recognize what is false. Thank you again, you were very genorous to sharing your tips.
jamebozo 2 years ago
You are not teaching debate but evasion, manipulation, and cheap rhetorical tricks-like teaching someone to cheat on a test.
Instead of encouraging one to be a critical thinker and to debate logically you are teaching one to use logically fallacies, e.g., Straw Man Fallacy, etc.
DanielForkbeard 2 years ago 2
Agree!!!
CSwiss 2 years ago
Thank you for expressing my thoughts.
cocotiger77 2 years ago
the point of a debate should be to find the truth, not to impose a belief on to someone. both sides should have the common goal to find out what is right. not acnologing opposing aguments when there is a valid point being made is unproductive. the purpose should be to gain understanding, not to win just to take control
olympussound 2 years ago
lol oh my god you look so different on stickam.
Raven72563 2 years ago
What a good idea to create a video for debate tips.
Fantastic job.
I find it helpful, as a debator.
blazetrial 2 years ago
I always thought religious debaters were dishonest. But a video demonstrating underhand tricks to put other people down kind of caps it.
Isn't the Truth enough?
owaingr 2 years ago
these tips aren't that good. Honestly most of them unfair and have nothing to do with the nature of debate.
onexshortofapornstar 2 years ago
yes i do agree with your trick can kill some poor speaker but not a all.
i hate someone asking questions in debate!!! why not just elaborate your points or your opinions on the topic? why should you ask question?
the question might stop other people to speak if they cant answer it, but this is not a debate!!!
we should win with our own point and knowledge!!!!
SHAME ON YOUR TRICKS~~~
sleepzz44 2 years ago
Any person that you debate whose not an idiot will see right through all these cheap tricks, you're not really winning the debate with these tips, you're just pulling a fast one.
wohodude100 2 years ago
'stubble'?
draagon66 3 years ago
Obama win the debate, sorry for every wan.
raulvideo 3 years ago
This seems to be instructions on how to win a debate in a not-completely-honest way. o_O
#3 is called a strawman, isn't it?
Mithcoriel 3 years ago 7
I totally agree and even if you do 'win', any intelligent person will realise he's been conned after thinking about it later. Also, if you do it on video, others will see your 'fake' points for what they are.
marcluc1988 3 years ago
the best way to win a debate is to tell the truth and to belive in what you'r saying .
saintangelo1 3 years ago 2
could you plz give us the link to the site u referred to in the beginning of your video.
great vid by the way. thanx :)
jjjalmood 3 years ago
Hi, I would highly recommend to also put the website link in the description.
mrdavidn3 3 years ago
OMG, that was a who's who of logical fallacies.
Oh, and number 5 can't be used against atheism.
Number 6 was obfuscation, a very under handed tactic that aims to create confusion rather than actually explain your point.
I do not deny that these are good tactics to win a debate, but they are terrible ways to find truth.
macman13 4 years ago
what the else is the website? come on nobody wants to see you read that.
lexhotone718 4 years ago
whats the name of the website?
hipposrsocool 4 years ago
Your voice is sexy and you're cute.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
he is isnt he...jerked all over myself :D
CIAOfilms 4 years ago
YES! The only way to remain a believer! Fight your own intellect with any means to avoid the horrible reality. Good for you!
tjohooorider 4 years ago
Oh my... It is a strategy of obtaining power by appealing to the gut feelings of the public, usually by powerful use of rhetoric and propaganda; in other words, demagogy.
You'd never win an argument with a scholar like that. : (
QuarksAreStrange 4 years ago
I'll watch part 2
QuarksAreStrange 4 years ago
why didn't you just post the link. nobody wants to watch someone else reading.
jeffreysquirrel 4 years ago
if anyone is familiar with George Orwell's Nimal Farm, squeler wasn't a good guy. (just my first thoughts about this video)
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
This is NOT a guide on how to win a debate. It's a list of fallacies that may be employed to trick your opponent and the audience into thinking you have won. Employing such tactics does not prove whatever point you are trying to make, it only aims to create a fog of deception so thick that piercing it becomes hopelessly tiresome.
JustOneEarth 4 years ago 2
When I watched the political debates, it was obvious who had tricks they were pulling, by not answering questions and turning anything around to whatever they want to talk about. I didn't like or trust any of the candidates who turned things around, rather than just honestly answering the questions (like Ron Paul). If you don't have good honest, truthful facts, you have to resort to tricks, I suppose.
EMTRUE 4 years ago
I mean Ron Paul is an honest candidate.
EMTRUE 4 years ago
I think the way to truly "win" a debate is not to use these (underhanded) tactics yourself, but to familiarize yourself with them enough that you can stop your OPPONENT from getting away with them. I have a feeling the list was an attempt at sarcasm.
(...or was that implied, and I'm just slow?)
TheoreticalBullshit 4 years ago
Essentially what I'm saying is that if you try to pull any of this crap with someone who actually knows how to debate, you're going to get your ass handed to you, only to walk away embarassed.
TheoreticalBullshit 4 years ago 2
Debate for the sake of debate? These appears to be ways of scoring points, not coming to truth.
kalin666 4 years ago 3
Yes, these would be tips to "win" a debate not come to an actual truth. The list is by Schopenhauer.
goldengun85 4 years ago
@goldengun85 I don't know now..if I get caught even slightly distorting or trying to distort facts...I get kicked off the team...
Ghillie334 5 months ago
Sounds like a joke.
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
He's kidding, guys. This video is golden.
heartrocketblast 4 years ago
Should be called "how to kill an intelligent debate"...
lerxst74 4 years ago
I studied many of these types of "arguments" in a couple college critical argumentation classes, most were defined as fallacious.
nathangimpel 4 years ago
Well some may be defined as fallacious but the main point in a debate is to win. If you consider it to be by any means necessary then some of these are good tips, however it was the first time I read through this list and some I dont agree with. The list is by Schopenhauer.
goldengun85 4 years ago
Yeah, just because I think they're fallacious doesn't mean that I don't use them, or at least try to. They work very well against people who like to speak before they think and are angered and/or confused easily also (which happens to be a lot of the people I get in arguments with for some reason).
nathangimpel 4 years ago
I would just say use with caution because if you're going up against an experienced debater, it could look like you're trying to pull a cheap trick. It wasn't anything personal against the goldengun, I managed to watch the rest of the video and thought it was pretty interesting.
nathangimpel 4 years ago 2
Oh I didnt take it personal, I was just pointing out my perspective. I think it may be more of a post-modern view of debating. I havent used any of these yet but it seems like it would be somewhat helpful in winning a debate.
goldengun85 4 years ago
And when are you gonna come into our stickam room???? You better come soon we are in there everynight and we stay on very late.
goldengun85 4 years ago
Only listened to the first ten but they all seem to be straw man arguments. Helpful if you wish to argue with somebody unaccustomed to critical argumentation but doesn't really solve any issues, merely attempts to confuse. On the other hand, most arguments regarding entrenched political and/or religious views aren't meant to persuade one's opponent but are used to express one's beliefs and present them as superior in comparison to your antagonists to onlookers.
nathangimpel 4 years ago
First!
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
I adore this, Golden! Thanks! It's so perfect.
azrienoch 4 years ago