[schalab]

The allure of free speech and debate is that the best ideas win.

But what I have often found is that the best debater wins.

And some debaters are so good they can win both sides of a debate.

This wouldnt be that much of a problem if you assume verbal iq is an independent variable uniformly distributed through the population. But I have often found verbal iq is highly co-related with other biological traits and markers. This creates a biased situation where debates often lead to erroneous conclusions and bad results.

[asdfman123]

I'm not sure how much verbal IQ has to do with it. Everything in life is a matter of practice and study. For instance, there's difference in musical ability between people, but the guy who practices guitar every day is going to be better than the guy who doesn't, 100 times out of 100.

I actually have a considerably higher test verbal IQ than mathematical and have perfect verbal section test scores to show it. However, I used to really suck at debates because I was naïve and unpracticed.

I went through a few years of spending too much time on reddit, though, and now I can wallop most average people. The most important thing BY FAR is to immediately establish definitions and frame the debate. You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you probably know more about them.

[crispyambulance]

  > You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you probably know more about them.

That's a good way to repel people from ever engaging with you and instead find ways to work around you. Moreover, you can't actually "constrain" the discussion unless it's deliberately structured that way (like what lawyers do in a court).

You've got to respect and address any alternative framing that your "opponent" is operating under, they're not going to comply with an arbitrary framing of an argument that you provide, just because.

[asdfman123]

I find it's pretty easy to frame the debate, generally, though. When they bring up off-topic points, you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question."

Now, you become an annoying ass when you try to turn every discussion into a debate, and try to win every time. Don't do that. Sometimes it's better to let other people win or just feel heard. But if you want to win, that's how you do it.

[crispyambulance]

  > ... you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question."

But you just said your M.O. is to deliberately force the opponent to operate in a "tiny airspace" that you define. So, there's not really "plenty of room" to discuss those issues they brought up.

That pisses people off, it's seen as an aggressive move and can easily backfire.

Framing the debate is perhaps the most difficult task towards "winning" a debate.

[asdfman123]

I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm actually describing. I agree -- you should not try to debate people in casual conversation with the goal of winning. Even if they're logically incorrect in a few places, their underlying values are still valid, so you need to work with them to find a solution that works for everyone.

Trying to "win" can definitely backfire, so you should do it sparingly. In truth, the only place I really debate people is on the internet, most visibly with my pro-Trump relatives on Facebook :).

However, the person I was responding to was talking about "how to win debates," and that's how you do it. Yes, if you want to win, you do need to be hard nosed and aggressive (I prefer gently guiding them down the garden path until they realize it's too late to turn back). Whether or not you should do it is a different point entirely, and to be frank, I completely agree with you there.

(Meta note: do you see how I'm actually making a belated attempt to frame the debate right here, and it's not necessarily as aggressive as I describe? Really sometimes it's just needed to establish clarity.)

[schalab]

You have natural talent which becomes exponentially better with training. But a guy who struggles to even find words will be trounced by you 9 times out of 10. Regardless of who is right.

Interestingly those type of people will rarely venture on message boards, because this requires a lot of reading and writing and they would rather spend their time on other pursuits(maybe more visual?). Its interesting to imagine the section of viewpoints that dont even get represented at this level.

[asdfman123]

I doubt that has much to do with verbal IQ, though. When I was a kid I also had trouble finding words, so I made a lifelong habit of learning them. As a result it made me an excellent writer and reader, but still didn't improve my speaking.

If you're feeling verbally blocked it's probably more likely that your problem is some form of social anxiety. (That was mine.) If you become much more talkative when drunk, for instance, then the problem is inhibition.

You can meet plenty of garrulous people who can talk circles around you, but it doesn't mean they're necessarily bright.

[tunesmith]

I think that is partly because most debates are unfortunately laden with time pressure and performance pressure. Underneath all that distraction is an actual argument, that given the premises and valid reasoning, should stand the test of time. And if they don't have those, they won't. It's amazing how many arguments by "good debaters" start to fall apart and dissolve once given a second look.