Welcome to Gaia! ::

Now, in this thread, I will put friendly pieces of advice given by myself and others. Just tell me what you want to put in the first post, and, should I deem it good enough (Don't worry, I probably will), it shall be placed inside this post. I will start it off, as I would be a terrible poster had I not.

NOTE: If you feel a piece of advice is bad, you must PROVE to me that it should be taken off before I do, otherwise, I will throw away your opinion, unless I hold it in high regard, or course.

Friendly Advice:

1. Just because you find that you cannot debate a certain point made by an opponent, do not immediately concede. Give it a bit of time, maybe think it over for about 10 minutes. I know I would have won at least two other debates had I not conceded right away.

2. KNOW when to concede. When you are arguing from a moral perspective, and others are using facts, you can't win. Since they don't share your morals, your morals mean nothing to them. Now, if you have one fact, you can win. NOTE: Just because it is illegal, it does not make it bad. The law can be wrong, and is ever changing. Do not base an argument against abortion off of the law. You won't win. The law also has many loopholes, where facts do not. (I myself didn't learn this for a month after joining the ED)

3. Just because you can beat all of your friends, that doesn't mean you can beat the ED. The ED is filled with people like your friends, people like you, and people that are just plain better. Don't assume your argument is irrefutable. They almost never are.

4. If you become a regular, you will almost always make an enemy, unless you never offend annyone ever. Which is impossible. People are too easily offended. Don't worry about it too much.

5. If you think someone's argument is wrong but you aren't sure how to prove it, see if you can make them prove it. Ask them for proof of any generalizations. Make them qualify definitions and otherwise tighten up their argument. Always double check for fallacies too, a lot of them are quite rampid in the ED. You can win a debate without ever putting forth an opposing view if the other person is sloppy.

6. Sometimes it is best not to try and win a debate because the debate itself can't be won. Your goal should be just not to lose.

I'll explain, think if it like a game of chess. Your opponent is just trying to win the game, but your goal is just not to lose. That means if you can't win you try and force a tie. You don't win but you don't lose ether. (This one doesn't work for everyone. I, personally, love just winning. A tie is better than losing for me, but not as good as winning.)

7. There are some people who make topics, and when they try to debate, they fence-sit, afraid of saying one thing or the other(therefore actually defining their opion instead of being vague). While these people are often not that entertaining or fun to debate with, sometimes a regular person may fence-sit on a particular topic because it might reveal they are wrong. If they are fence-sitting on something, try asking questions about that particular topic. Be sure to add that a definate opinion would be basically required in order to state such a view on another similar topic. Do NOT, however, force that person to say their opinion if it's not really related to the topic. That's just dumb.

Example: Let's say someone says they are against animal cruelty (sorry guys, no offence here), but they say nothing about what effects not being able to animal test would have on civilization. By bring up this topic, you can perhaps create a hole in thier arguement, and I suppose it could turn the tide of 'battle' if you're losing. Still, use this wisely. Otherwise, you just look like an...a**. Although I suppose that doesn't matter if you don't care about what others think of you.

8. Knowledge is knowing the facts but wisdom is knowing how to use them. Facts can be used to prove anything, but logic and reasoning disproves most facts. (I'm debating with the second sentence here, but I might be reading it wrong)

9. (A) If someone's getting on your nerves, back off the ED for a while, log off of Gaia, do something you enjoy and just don't think about it. It is better to be labeled a "deserter" and then prove them wrong than to risk being banned as a troll.

9. (B) Another possibility is just leaving. There are some people that refuse to listen to reason, no matter how much proof you show them, and will always insult you. Sometimes it's better to concede than to just end up furious.
So. Start adding. Now.

Sometimes it is best not to try and win a debate because the debate itself can't be won. Your goal should be just not to lose.

I'll explain, think if it like a game of chess. Your opponent is just trying to win the game, but your goal is just not to lose. That means if you can't win you try and force a tie. You don't win but you don't lose ether. wink

Can you really say that? I've seen you debate often enough (I consider you a regular) and I would actually consider you an ally. Though we have never spoken to each other before, I judge people based on the quality of their argument, and if I think they're good enough, I will consider them an ally. If they aren't, I consider them an enemy or a neutral party until a later time.

I don't think I have any "enemies". I just have a few folks I hate...

Actually now that I think of it, I don't hate anyone nor do I consider anyone my enemy.

They just aren't important enough to deserve me as an adversary.

Knowledge is knowing the facts but wisdom is knowing how to use them.

Facts can be used to prove anything, but logic and reasoning disproves most facts.

Those are just some words from the wise I was told when I was a kid. They have not let me down yet.

i'm not going to invalidate someone's argument because of sloppy presentation. you have to put forth your own opinion, or else what are you defending?

You don't have to defend your opinion or stance. The first person to post an assertion is the one with the burden of proof. For example if someone says "murder is wrong", I don't have to disprove this (even if I disagree). The person who posted the assertion must prove that murder is wrong. By posing an opposing view, I'd have the burden of proof for my opinion. Why should I bother if asking for proof, definitions, and elaboration might be all that's required?

There are times when this doesn't work. I mean the OP might have really thought it out and just presented it sloppily. Now you've got a tight specific argument to argue against. For me at least, it is much easier to prove one or two specific points then it is to prove something more general.

No. The burden of proof only works if you're talking about "_____ does/doesn't exist". You have to support your argument that murder is just just as much as they have to support theirs. If you are arguing about the existence of god, all you would have to do is debunk all of their arguments.