How do I learn to debate? When i'm just thinking to myself

You sound like my brother, broke both his legs and some ribs because of this. In a car accident of course.

Argue the other side.

If you can't argue the other side, you don't know the issue or why people have the positions that they do. There's also a certain mental agility gained through forcing yourself outside of your comfort zone, something that's quite important in the performative aspect of debate. And, from the sounds of it, you seem to have an issue discussing subjects you feel emotionally invested in and this is probably the best way to deprogram your ideological bullshit.

>>3300943
He did or you did?

>>3300960
By "argue the other side" you mean trying to put myself on their shoes? As in, trying to argue for whatever the "other side" is? Or do you mean arguing against someone with opposite views?

>>3300975
I mean argue people with views similar to your own and do it from the perspective of the people you view as your ideological opponents.

In other words, if you're pro-choice, argue the pro-life position against a militant feminist who works at an abortion clinic. If you're for closing the borders to middle eastern refugees, argue from the open-borders perspective. At the very least, it'll help you realize why you actually do believe the things you do.

Sounds like you're just a brainlet.

>>3300975
>By "argue the other side" you mean trying to put myself on their shoes
He means that you should play the devil's advocate.

>>3300983
/thread

>>3300917
Pay close attention to what /pol/ does. Then don't do any of that shit.

>>3300982
It might help. My usual reaction to seeing someone I technically agree with with go full autismo is just looking the other way to avoid cringing. But that might not be the best way to handle things.

>>3300917
First, you shut the fuck up and listen to the opposition. Then you see if they said anything wrong with it or if it supports your point. The rest comes naturally unless youre as retarded as I think you are.

That or you could just do what Tumblr and /pol/ does.

File: the-art-of-rhetoric-2-728.jpg (96KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 728x546px

>>3300917
>>3300917
You must do less talking and more listening, grasshopper.

I mean really train yourself to take a genuine interest in what other people have to say. Train yourself to look them in the eye when they're speaking to you, and they will like you for it. You have to train yourself to accept face-to-face confrontation.

A good way to practice is to go to a bar with your friends (if you don't have any, go make some. How to you expect to convince people when you aren't friends with people?) and let everyone take turns going up to women and dropping the worst pick up line you can think of on them. "Hey, nice shoes. Wanna fuck?" Train yourself to not get mad at the cunts who take offense and just move on from rejection, while learning how to phrase it in a way that makes the nice ones laugh like they're in on the joke.

Know your audience, know yourself. Perfect practice makes for perfect executions.

>>3301006
To put things another way, and listening closely as >>3301008 and >>3301009 suggest should also help with this, is to figure out whether you actually have any ideas, or whether it's the case that someone else's ideas have you. In my experience, when people are neurotic about talking points, it tends to mean that they're captives of someone else's ideas, that they don't have much they can call their own, and that they're screechy about it because they're inherently self-aware of how much of they've defined themselves by ideas and concepts that they really embody or believe in.

/his/ - History & Humanities

>>3301026
>In my experience, when people are neurotic about talking points, it tends to mean that they're captives of someone else's ideas, that they don't have much they can call their own, and that they're screechy about it because they're inherently self-aware of how much of they've defined themselves by ideas and concepts that they really embody or believe in
Use simpler words

>>3301008
Sometimes it's hard to come up with a response on the spot.
Say you are having an argument, someone says something you can't think a response for on the spot, so you kind of have to nod at it, but later on, way after the argument is over, you actually do think of an answer for it, so you no longer think the other person was right, but the person is also not there to try and counter whatever response you came up with at that time anymore.
It's a very unproductive situation.

>>3301026
It's hard to know. I think most people have very specific ideas about what they want or think, but they have to make compromises because they know that there's probably very few people with the same very specific ideas. There's always an irrational, subconscious origin to what you stand for, I'd imagine, and if you've been thinking similar things for a long time it might be easy to forget how you even came to think them in the first place.

Certainly a mentality of "us and them", and worrying more about the others doesn't help.

>>3301031
This seemed like the most fitting board for the subject.

>>3301046
>Sometimes it's hard to come up with a response on the spot.
Youre a brainlet

>>3301052
A reasonable response anyway. Especially when you feel a bit annoyed with the other person. Not uncommon to be the catalyst for getting into the argument on the first place.

>>3301052
>implying a 9001 IQ super scientist can't be a bad orator

>>3301057
Then that 9000iq fag is a brainlet too

>>3301046
>Sometimes it's hard to come up with a response on the spot.
When you're caught off-guard, you acknowledge that you aren't aware of this issue and, usually, ask them to elaborate. One of two things will happen: either you learn something and you can reconsider your ideas in light of it, or you'll find an opening. Remember, debate is performative, just because someone sounds like they know what they're talking about, or it seems like an idea is relevant, doesn't actually mean it is.

File: 149329432131.gif (1MB, 279x219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 279x219px

Assuming it is not an intrinsically emotionally charged debate (i.e. a spat between people), or a matter of life and death,

i) Do not go in just looking to rhetorically tear a person a new asshole if you want to change a person's mind or clarify your own views.
This isn't to say do not be firm, or confident, or easily concede what you want to say, but taking whatever thought you have as being
the final word will only serve to make the counterargument you did not predict, or one you did predict but the words against it are not
coming to you all the more devastating and the point of bitter "I should have said X" ruminating for hours or days to come.
On the other side of the coin, supposing you do win, the aforementioned case will happen to your fellow interlocutor. Too quick,
and ferocious of an attack seldom serves to really add anything new to your thinking, or that of others.

ii) Silence does not need to always be filled, take time to formulate your thoughts. Force yourself to speak slowly, and take pauses to think.
This helps stop you from becoming shrill and prone to rambling, and helps promote a calmer attitude.

iii) Assume that whatever your opponent is arguing for does have merit, in the case that you seriously want to engage with them.
Giving them space may allow you to find a weak underlying assumption, or common ground you share in their arguments.

iii.i) Another method of debate along this vein could be to take their argument as being true, and looking at how far you can take it. It may succeed, or perhaps implode in certain ways you or the other person did not foresee.

iv) That said, avoid taking it for granted that you and them are using words and concepts in the same manner and the way they are arguing is necessarily
what they are arguing for. Make it clear what you are trying to convey, and ask them to do the same.

v) Try to not take counter points which are not explicitly made as such, personal attacks.

>>3301009
If you are trying to convince someone, should you try to stay within the boundaries of what they deem reasonable? Is it possible to argue with someone when they have very narrow ideas of what is "reasonable"? Or is not being able to show them that they aren't reasonable a sign that you yourself aren't either?

>>3301089
When debating facts it's not uncommon for me to wonder if I should of been more concise or more direct. I can't help but feel that when I have to challenge the same argument more than once, any further point against it might feel like increasingly picky. Or in other words, like you are trying to make excuses.

But on the opposite hand, saying too much at once might come across as rambly.

>>3301180
>Silence does not need to always be filled, take time to formulate your thoughts.

I often get the impression that hesitation is taken as a sign of doubt, rather than as a sign of calm.

>>3300982
I started doing this and realized that I don't give a fuck about almost anything anymore.