Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Alright, I recently have noticed this and it is driving me nuts. Aside from the very loose interpretation of objective 'truth', I have really been trying recently to get my debate skills up (I do it all the time whenever I feel like it, so I may as well be good at it). They have really been slacking lately and I am not entirely sure why.

It seems that Ne is shooting me off on some random perspective that may or may not be accurate (usually completely unrelated and does not help my argument), and I am not sure if it is the fault of Ti for not filtering properly or if Ne is underdeveloped to not give me more insights so Ti could have more to choose from.

Lately, I have gotten into the habit of using S-based arguments like nit-picking and using dictionaries to define words and really getting into the semantics of arguments. I don't think that is making any ground. Is my knowledge of logical fallacies getting hazy?

How does the Ti-Ne setup work at its fullest in a debate? If I am truly skilled at using a tool, I would rather use it instead of one I am not so skilled in, but with debate, it is hard to objectively measure your performance other than if you are winning or loosing to a given person. It is hard to quantify who is better than whom in the long haul (compared to all others you have debated). Help? ENTPs, you guys may have a bit of insight yourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
Well I am not the greatest at debate myself but you should try to identify the specific premise of which you disagree and stick with it. Also, the semantic argument can work if it really hits the actual point. Sometimes, people really just disagree with word meaning. There's nothing wrong with bringing that up but it is useless if your interpretation of the word doesn't further the overall point you are trying to make.
Don't measure your debate skills with whether you are winning or losing to somebody because, more often then not, there is no right answer and people are assholes and will think they are right regardless of your superior debating skills, so that's just a bad reference point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,669 Posts
Well I am not the greatest at debate myself but you should try to identify the specific premise of which you disagree and stick to it. Also, the semantic argument can work if it really hits the actual point. Sometimes people really just disagree with word meaning. There's nothing wrong with bringing that up but it is useless if your interpretation of the word doesn't further the overall point you are trying to make.
Also, don't measure your debate skills with whether you are winning or losing to somebody because, more often then not, there is no right answer and people are assholes and will think they are right regardless of your superior debating skills, so that's just a bad reference point.
Spoken like a true lawyer!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,504 Posts
hahaha. I've learned that just about every lawyer stereotype and joke has a little bit of truth to it.

Q. How can you tell a lawyer is lying?
A. Other lawyers look interested.

kekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekeke
 
  • Like
Reactions: kikikins

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Setting definitions is key to arguments though. I don't think you need to use it to win, as much as you need to know what you're arguing against. When everyone agrees on terms, you know you're not playing volleyball on one side of the net and tennis on the other.

But don't dwell on semantics, and don't approach them like they're an argument (unless you're arguing about words, obviously). Typically once I notice there seems to be some debate and I don't think it's working well, I go "well, here's what I mean by X, Y, and Z terms. Is that what you mean too or are we talking about completely different things?"

Ti-Ne comes naturally from there. You should be able to almost instinctively notice holes in their argument, contradictions, and logical fallacies. If you find yourself lacking in those areas, do critical thinking exercises and study debate logic. Ne will be that bit of inspiration or that nagging voice that tells you something is wrong or leads you to a conclusion, while Ti will provide the information and analysis that proves your intuition is correct. But be careful using Ne without that Ti backup. Those are the moments when you go, "I know you're wrong, and I remember reading about why earlier, but I can't remember or add the pieces together... "

Lastly, when people sense they're losing an argument, a lot of times they have a tendency to move the goalposts so that they can win something. We don't tend to notice this because we're so busy continuing to play that we don't see it happening until we've lost and we sit there going, "Wait, I thought I had this."

Best thing to do (in my experience) is to calmly bring them back to the original argument, restate your conclusion (which is the winning one), and then shift the subject back to their new topic with interest and ease. It's the gentleman's way of asserting your win. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
The most important part of any debate is to frame the issue. Make the argument for the other guy. Knowing all sides of the issue is important. This way you could lead the debate in the direction you want it to. Once you box in the issue, and know exactly the types of arguments the other person is making, then it's time unleash. The best is when you say: "Well, you will probably argue so and so. This is the argument you will present...." Confidence and tone is key. Use words and language that belittle the validity of the other person's argument. Then present your argument, but make sure to stick to the points. Sometimes it's hard not to ramble and go on a tangent. But going on a tangent is alright if everything gets tied together at the end. The most important part is to bring your point home. Being a good closer is what it's all about. You want to leave the person speechless.

Again, box issues--->frame direction of argument--->make sure you're always in control of where the argument is going so as to gloss over your weak points and accentuate the strong points----> conclude and hit it home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
Well I am not the greatest at debate myself but you should try to identify the specific premise of which you disagree and stick with it. Also, the semantic argument can work if it really hits the actual point. Sometimes, people really just disagree with word meaning. There's nothing wrong with bringing that up but it is useless if your interpretation of the word doesn't further the overall point you are trying to make.
Don't measure your debate skills with whether you are winning or losing to somebody because, more often then not, there is no right answer and people are assholes and will think they are right regardless of your superior debating skills, so that's just a bad reference point.
That paragraph read like someone who needn't become an English major.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
Nah, I'm only an asshole to people who had it coming.
You seem to function upon a different measurement of assholery, for neither of our comments are more than mildly offensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
If you want to hear how you should not present an argument, listen to the solicitor general argue the health care reform bill.

On the other hand, probably the most brilliant attorney I've ever heard, Paul Clement, who is literally the Michael Jordan of debating in oral arguments. Notice how he frames the arguments, knows all sides of the issue, and his ability to bring his point home by tying everything together. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with him. His style and debate skills are impeccable. It's worth listening to.

Listen to the first three minutes of the solicitor general then skip to 56:30 and listen to Clement. Listen to him debate with the SC judges.

Audio : Day 2: Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,780 Posts
It seems that Ne is shooting me off on some random perspective that may or may not be accurate (usually completely unrelated and does not help my argument), and I am not sure if it is the fault of Ti for not filtering properly or if Ne is underdeveloped to not give me more insights so Ti could have more to choose from.
Indulge in Ne's tangents if you think they hold even a nugget of truth. Eventually, after a few more tangents, your argument will fully develop and the irrelevant parts of the various tangents won't really matter. Basically the difference between Ne/Ti and Ti/Ne is that with Ne/Ti, Ne comes up with an idea that Ti says, "Yep that has a nugget of truth," and the ENTP runs with it. With Ti/Ne, Ne comes up with an idea and Ti says, "But that only has a nugget of truth," and the INTP Ti's the shit out of the idea to the point of where the moment has passed and the idea is irrelevant.

If you get enough nuggets of truth that can fit together, you end up getting "gold bar" of truth eventually. This is a clumsy process for you because you want to refine the nugget before you gather more, so to speak. I suppose the best approach for you would be to ask questions to the person you're debating until you find something that doesn't make sense. Bonus points if it's one of those thin threads that cause an entire argument to collapse.
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Top