It's not about convincing your debate opponent, it is about who is watching.

BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
It's not about convincing your debate opponent, it is about who is watching.

I saw the movie "Thank You For Smoking" this weekend. I had heard good reviews about this movie when it came out and intended to watch it but other things kept coming up.

So I got a chance to watch it this weekend and there were some parts of it that reminded me of discussions we have here on the message boards. Namely, when we are discussing with a theist and we seem to be getting nowhere we need to remember, it's not about convincing them it's about the people 'watching'. If there are spectators who are on the fence, those are the ones we are trying to reach. Those are the ones we are trying to show the rationality atheism.

 

Here is the dialogue from the movie that reminded me of this, the lead character is having a conversation with his son about debate.

"Joey Naylor: ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Nick Naylor: -Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right...
Nick Naylor: -Well if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: -OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say:
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: -Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: -Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them." ***Points into the crowd*** "

(Mod Edit - Updated title)


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
I have not yet seen this

I have not yet seen this movie, but I agree with the idea behind it.  I have watched first hand while two people engage in a debate.  The people watching are the best part - you can see their minds change as the debate progresses.  The opponent's mind may never be changed, but that really isn't the point.

People listen during debates and wait for good points to be made - in essence they will support whomever provides the best argument.  They don't even have agree with the winners position!  Minds can be opened in a good debate.

 I have got to see this movie!

(p.s. I was really hoping the title of the movie meant there would be good suggestions to quit smoking since I do want to, but I guess not, huh?  LOL) 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I haven't seen it,

I haven't seen it, either.  (Who has time for a whole movie?)

But that's a great clip of script and an excellent point that neither debator's mind will likely change, but some in the audience might be swayed. 

By the way, was Nick Naylor a preacher-man?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: By the way,

Susan wrote:

By the way, was Nick Naylor a preacher-man?

No, the character was a lobbyist for big tobacco, but he made some very good points about argumentation throughout the movie. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I've never really thought

I've never really thought it about it that way, but it certainly makes sense. 

Thing is, what if you're a real scheister who just happens to be an excellent debator?  You could completely sway an audience just by twisting words around or using theatrics.  Oh wait, that happens all the time in churches, doesn't it?

If god takes life he's an indian giver


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I've

pariahjane wrote:

I've never really thought it about it that way, but it certainly makes sense.

Thing is, what if you're a real scheister who just happens to be an excellent debator? You could completely sway an audience just by twisting words around or using theatrics. Oh wait, that happens all the time in churches, doesn't it?

You are right, I am sure this effect can be used for good or bad but for far too long the other side has been aware of this tactic and using it fully to their advantage.

We need to master this method, we need to make our arguments wholly convincing and intriquing to engage the audience and worry less about swaying the debate opponent.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I've

pariahjane wrote:

I've never really thought it about it that way, but it certainly makes sense.

Thing is, what if you're a real scheister who just happens to be an excellent debator? You could completely sway an audience just by twisting words around or using theatrics. Oh wait, that happens all the time in churches, doesn't it?

And politics. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I love it when people

I love it when people actually get on one of my soapboxes for me!

I've mentioned something along this line in a few threads over the past few months. I don't intend to change anyone's mind directly. In a debate, you're just not going to have someone say, "Hey, you're right, I'm wrong. I've changed my mind." There's usually too much pride at stake, fear of public ridicule, humiliations galore (God, I love the Princess Bride...)

It's also why, in the troll thread a week or so ago, I asked why this master debater was afraid to put his arguments in print on this website. If an argument is solid, it's solid in print, minus the charisma the debator might have personally.

While there is some charisma in writing, of course, it's greatly reduced because charisma is an instant thing. You are hit by it, and it works. In print, you can go back and reread, review, rethink.

I think as far as debate tactics go, the one thing that all of us could do better here is stick to the topic. As the clip in the OP illustrates, deflection is probably the most powerful tool in rhetoric. Especially when we're discussing this or that aspect of god or religion, it's really easy to get sidetracked by a claim that's obviously ridiculous.

With so much good information available, and virtually every strawman or fallacy covered already, I think we could all benefit from saying the following much more often:

"I hear the point you're making, but it's not what we're talking about. Why don't we discuss that in another thread. Right now, let's go back to the original question."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I love

Hambydammit wrote:


I love it when people actually get on one of my soapboxes for me!


Glad I could be of assistance. I would gladly help you any day.

 
Hambydammit wrote:


I've mentioned something along this line in a few threads over the past few months. I don't intend to change anyone's mind directly. In a debate, you're just not going to have someone say, "Hey, you're right, I'm wrong. I've changed my mind." There's usually too much pride at stake, fear of public ridicule, humiliations galore (God, I love the Princess Bride...)

It's also why, in the troll thread a week or so ago, I asked why this master debater was afraid to put his arguments in print on this website. If an argument is solid, it's solid in print, minus the charisma the debator might have personally.

While there is some charisma in writing, of course, it's greatly reduced because charisma is an instant thing. You are hit by it, and it works. In print, you can go back and reread, review, rethink.

I think as far as debate tactics go, the one thing that all of us could do better here is stick to the topic. As the clip in the OP illustrates, deflection is probably the most powerful tool in rhetoric. Especially when we're discussing this or that aspect of god or religion, it's really easy to get sidetracked by a claim that's obviously ridiculous.

With so much good information available, and virtually every strawman or fallacy covered already, I think we could all benefit from saying the following much more often:

"I hear the point you're making, but it's not what we're talking about. Why don't we discuss that in another thread. Right now, let's go back to the original question."


I also agree with trying to stay on topic better. Deflection is an effective tactic, I think so much so that most people do not consciously know they are doing it, or if they are observing the debate that are consciously unaware it has just taken place.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Take a quick gander through

Take a quick gander through THIS THREAD.

Look at how fast people are trying to get away from my question.

Granted, I strayed a bit by preempting the opposition to the study I've been citing all day, but look how fast people are to try to change the discussion to the merits of atheism!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Take a

Hambydammit wrote:

Take a quick gander through THIS THREAD.

Look at how fast people are trying to get away from my question.

Granted, I strayed a bit by preempting the opposition to the study I've been citing all day, but look how fast people are to try to change the discussion to the merits of atheism!

I saw that thread when you started it and I wondered how long it would take for it to stray. You are doing an excellent job trying to keep everyone focused and on topic.

If the conversation naturally strays from the original topic that is okay, the problem is when it gets deflected with the intent to avoid answering the initial topic.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
*Bump* The crowd is still

*Bump*

The crowd is still watching. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

BGH wrote:
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them." ***Points into the crowd*** "

I've made this same observation. I'm glad you brought this up. This is whats going on in many arguments. Many theists continue to post "rebuttals" on youtube even after they've been clearly refuted. They are trying to be the last comments on the main page to make it look like they won...to get the last word in like kids. 

And Hambydammit I haven't read that thread about religion's "contributions" to the world before now. It's fair to say that religion has actually hindered intellectual progress, but yet theists are willing to lie and claim otherwise.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: I've made this

AiiA wrote:
I've made this same observation. I'm glad you brought this up. This is whats going on in many arguments. Many theists continue to post "rebuttals" on youtube even after they've been clearly refuted. They are trying to be the last comments on the main page to make it look like they won...to get the last word in like kids.

I am currently logged in the site @ 1:30pm on a Tuesday. There are only 74 users online but..... there are 515 guests!! These are the crowd, the observers we are trying to reach.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Point Taken

 

You make a very good point. I'm sure that I do some drifting around on my own, but when I see a claim that's easy to attack, I can't help myself.

I'm sure this applies to everyone in some small way, atheist and theist alike. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: You

Archeopteryx wrote:

You make a very good point. I'm sure that I do some drifting around on my own, but when I see a claim that's easy to attack, I can't help myself.

I'm sure this applies to everyone in some small way, atheist and theist alike.

Take a look at my fist post to Simmo in this thread on this page.

The discussion had strayed from the OP's topic but I had a feeling he was still watching. He was sitting back and taking in both sides of the discussion, thinking about what was being said.

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Archeopteryx

BGH wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

You make a very good point. I'm sure that I do some drifting around on my own, but when I see a claim that's easy to attack, I can't help myself.

I'm sure this applies to everyone in some small way, atheist and theist alike.

Take a look at my fist post to Simmo in this thread on this page.

The discussion had strayed from the OP's topic but I had a feeling he was still watching. He was sitting back and taking in both sides of the discussion, thinking about what was being said.

 

 

It's funny that you mentione that, because that is the exact topic I had in mind while I was reading all this!

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:   You

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

You make a very good point. I'm sure that I do some drifting around on my own, but when I see a claim that's easy to attack, I can't help myself.

I'm sure this applies to everyone in some small way, atheist and theist alike.

I bet I fall for it every time. Smiling  I could use some instruction in logic and debate, but I have to admit that other interests prevent me from getting a good grounding in those areas.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Simmo's thread is a very

Simmo's thread is a very good example of this, and I'd like to share with you guys what I did. I don't mind that anyone can read this. It's not deceptive in any way. It's just good use of resources.

In that thread, REVLyle had come in and made naked assertions that what I had said about earlier Jesus parallels was false. Ordinarily, I don't bother with that kind of debate, but I felt it would be useful to let simmo see the debate. So, I came up with pages of references and links documenting parallels between Horus and Jesus, as well as a nice article about virgin births pre-Jesus.

As I expected, REVLyle spent a good while attacking everything but my evidence. He attacked my intelligence, my reading comprehension, my cut-and-pasting of information, and the thoroughness of my citations.

He only provided one counter claim, and that was by a theologian with no Egyptology background. He deflected so much away from my point that after a few posts, he was not even responding to my argument. After I pointed this out to him and refused to engage him until he could accurately tell me what my point actually was, he slinked off.

I pointed all of this out in the thread, and simmo was watching, as BGH has said.

Now, I've added a short essay on the formation of the Santa Claus myth at the end of the thread. I've shown how the origins of the Santa myth don't really resemble the jolly old man who lives at the north pole with reindeer and midgets who build toys in a workshop. But, when you combine individual elements from a half a dozen myths, throw in some creative license and a good publisher, and you've got Santa Clause.

So, by debating REVLyle, and letting him hang himself, I've accomplished two purposes. First, I let simmo see the difference between someone arguing and someone else debating. Secondly, I've been able to tie in the Jesus predecessor myths with an analogous example that everyone can understand. REVLyle actually helped my cause, because his whole objection was that none of the earlier myths were very much like the Jesus myth. I conceded his point over and over because it was actually the lynchpin of the premise I was trying to demonstrate!

If you go back and look carefully through that thread, you'll see that I've been setting the whole thing up from the beginning, and that engaging the theist was essentially the coup de grace. He argued my point for me, and then I used what he thought was a victory to demonstrate the ultimate failure of his position.

It was actually dumb luck that a theist came along and did a lot of my dirty work for me, but the pattern ended up exactly the same. Hopefully, it's that much stronger now that the observers can see that the theist in the debate actually proved my point for me.

REVLyle's mind will not be changed, but that's not who the debate was for.

[edit: HERE'S THE THREAD so that you can follow how this evolved to a final point in the last post I made.]

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
It's a great film--funny

It's a great film--funny and thought-provoking all the way through.

This is one of my pet peeves with Kent Hovind's "debates" (which I pick up through youtube).  Kent understands that he doesn't really need to engage the opponent in his "debates."  He's preaching to the audience the whole time.  He even uses the same opening remarks in most of them, with the same powerpoint slides and the same jokes. 

So even if he "loses" the "debate," Kent has accomplished his mission of spreading his message more effectively to more people.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Kent

Textom wrote:

Kent understands that he doesn't really need to engage the opponent in his "debates." He's preaching to the audience the whole time.

...and I totally agree.

I think sometimes atheists could do a better job of this. Granted from time to time we all get caught up in a debate and forget about talking to the 'audience', if we could make a more conscious effort when we recognize this is happening to bring the arguments around to where they speak to the masses instead of the opponent it would greatly help the effect we have.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This is one of my

Quote:
This is one of my pet peeves with Kent Hovind's "debates" (which I pick up through youtube).  Kent understands that he doesn't really need to engage the opponent in his "debates."  He's preaching to the audience the whole time.  He even uses the same opening remarks in most of them, with the same powerpoint slides and the same jokes.

So even if he "loses" the "debate," Kent has accomplished his mission of spreading his message more effectively to more people.

Wow, I feel like I'm in "Plugs for Hambydammit" mode right now, but what the hell.  Hovind and Comfort were the primary reasons I started writing a series of essays on what debate actually is

I'm not done with it yet, but I've at least covered the basic presentation of premises and contentions, as well as the different types of evidence and reasoning.

My hope is that everyone at RRS will feel free to direct posters to those book pages when they are preaching instead of debating.

This series will probably have at least four or five more installments, since I haven't covered syllogism, enthymemes, language problems, or fallacies.

For Iruka and others who have expressed doubts about their own abilities in debate, I'd highly recommend browsing through these essays a few times.  I'm not claiming that I'm the end all and be all of debate, but knowing stuff like this cannot hurt anything.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Slamming

 

I agree that it's sometimes very hard to be mindful of the fact that we have some kind of an audience out there watching our threads

This leads me to reconsider my tactics in another way. It's generally true that you're not going to convert your opponent in a debate and that it's largely for the people observing.

So that leads me to wonder about the effect of insults or just negative vocabulary in rebuttals. From what I have seen, everyone here tends to enter a thread with level language. But as soon as someone makes an ever so slight negative comment about the opposing view, the bashing rapidly multiplies.

 I can sympathize because I do this, too. It's very hard not to get frustrated with someone who just doesn't get it. But when you consider the argument from the mind of the person who doesn't get it, it's the other side that doesn't get it.

When the negativity reaches a point where both sides are loading their posts with comments like "you're being an idiot", or "you just don't have any common sense", or "you are utterly void of reading comprehension", or "you make me cry for humanity" and so on, I think it can reach a point where both sides seem to be acting childish, regardless of any soundness or validity in their arguments.

Some people are more sensitive to emotion and tone than others, and if we have those people in our audience, and if both sides are slinging poo at one another, I think it's possible that it could do some harm.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND:

 

Bashing on someone's repeated inability to grasp a simple logical concept is very fulfilling and satisfying. We can't hope to please everybody, so maybe this site's core demographic is people who like a little dirt in their debates. We certainly don't want this to be a formal atmosphere. That would just be boring.

 

Conclusion I've reached: Bashing and insults are fair game, but should be used advisedly. When you really want to punctuate something, and calling someone an idiot seems like just the thing to do it, I'd say go for it. But perhaps I/we should not overdo it.

It's the quality, not the quantity that matters!

 

There is now at least one smart ass who is tempted to reply, "I disagree. You're an idiot."

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

Conclusion I've reached: Bashing and insults are fair game, but should be used advisedly. When you really want to punctuate something, and calling someone an idiot seems like just the thing to do it, I'd say go for it. But perhaps I/we should not overdo it.

It's the quality, not the quantity that matters!

 

There is now at least one smart ass who is tempted to reply, "I disagree. You're an idiot."

Actually.... I agree, Idiot! LOL.

Seriously, I agree with what you are saying but I actually do not think our debate tactics are required to change very much, if at all, per se.

Sure insults are not always the most conducive to a debate but sometimes, it is all you can do to keep from typing the words "WHAT AREN'T YOU FUCKING GETTING, IDIOT?".

I think the thing that will help is to do exactly as you have done, re-examine your technique and see if there is anything you would like to change. Assess if there are aspects about your debate demeanor that might be more palatable to the audience. But do not make any major overhauls, every type of debater is needed to fill out the arguments. This variety helps display the different approaches people can take to achieve the same conclusion.

The one thing we can do from time to time is stop and think, "how can I phrase this next point to make it effective to all those watching but not actively involved".

 

 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx - No you are

Archeopteryx - No you are not an idiot - LOL

Overall I agree with your comments, however, there is just something cleansing about a well placed "Fuck you" sometimes. 

FWIW, one of the best things about this site is the support available.  There have been times I have wanted to crawl through my computer and strangle the person at the other end.  When that happens, I know it is time for me to back away and ask for help.  I have pm'd many people on this site asking for assistance and they always come through.  In the end, I calm down so I can think more clearly and the debate is re-focused in the right direction.  It is good to have smart, rational friends.

(Hamby, I have printed your essays, bookmarked the pages and plan to put them to good use.  Thank you for your hard work in compiling this information!) 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: But do not make

BGH wrote:
But do not make any major overhauls, every type of debater is needed to fill out the arguments. This variety helps display the different approaches people can take to achieve the same conclusion.

This is a good point that deserves emphasis.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


SassyDevil
SassyDevil's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
I've heard good things

I've heard good things about this movie, too.  Guess I should watch it. 

 That's such a good point, that it's not about convincing the person you're debating, but those who are watching.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: BGH

natural wrote:

BGH wrote:
But do not make any major overhauls, every type of debater is needed to fill out the arguments. This variety helps display the different approaches people can take to achieve the same conclusion.

This is a good point that deserves emphasis.

Thank you! Wink