[caraez]

I participate in debate. I know its extremely against my nature, but that's partly why I did it - to extend myself. I think it has helped me, but its also quite frustrating as its very difficult for me to improve. Do any other INFPs debate? What has been your experience?

 

[rowingineden]

I used to be really into a debate forum, when I was about 14. I was debating poli sci majors on politics. But eventually, I had learned all the ins and outs, and everything ended with me "winning" or "tying", and I got bored. I never seem to have much interest in debate even now - I just find it terribly dull.

 

[Rusalka]

I love debate and sometimes play devil's advocate or use the Socratic method to mess with people. I love to throw ideas around and I actually sometimes argue for the sake of arguing, or present some outlandish concept that's going through my head to see the response, then argue with them about it based on what they say. I try to bait people. I also hang around the debate circuit on YouTube sometimes; it's pretty gratifying to watch someone with your own viewpoint refute someone's argument.

I don't debate as much as I could, or formally, as I'm incredibly unconfident, and confidence is greatly needed in debate, because even if you're losing you have to keep up a front. :/ From all of this, though, I've been kind of considering becoming a defense attorney if what I want doesn't work out. Even my mom tells me I should be a lawyer from how much I start arguments.

 

[Raichan]

I do.

Sometimes, for either of these two major reasons

• Just to piss people off and see whether they're smart enough to see my T past my F.
  
• Just to teach people to think outside their boxes.

 

[Lad]

I can generally debate anything, whether I believe in the cause or not. It's definitely fun and more-so interesting to argue against the passionate types (the ones I respect the most), because it's easy to ruffle their feathers. I don't feel like I actually gain anything through most debates though. So unless I'm feeling a little destructive, I usually ignore them.

Rusk: +1 just for mentioning the Socratic method. My fave~

 

[caraez]

I meant formal debate, but its interesting to see people talking about debating unformally. I think this is partly why I got into it. I know an ENTP and we used to debate all the time about politics and whatnot but he stopped engaging in them awhile ago. :sad:

I think formal debate is more difficult because you're debating with a stranger rather than someone you're comfortable with? Also, with informal debate everyone is basically on even ground while in formal debate people have had training in strategies that aren't even clever but used brutally to defeat the opponent. One of my favorite parts of informal debate is seeing what people can come up with on the spot and what clever little rebuttals they have.

PS: Just googled the socratic method. This is basically one of the first things formal debaters learn to bypass, because your opponent WILL destroy you with it. However, its a nifty tool against those who haven't learned their lesson yet.

 

[ENFPie]

I really don't know much about INFP but I do want to say I think its great that you are going for it, making changes...I see the ENFP in you :tongue:

Pie x

 

[rowingineden]

I really don't know much about INFP but I do want to say I think its great that you are going for it, making changes...I see the ENFP in you :tongue:

Pie x

I have no clue what is meant by this post. What I think just happened is...
You: Debate = Making changes = ENFP
Me: ????

 

[Windswept Sky]

I hate debate. I mean, if it's not something I feel strongly about, it's fun, but when my feelings are involved I tend to get really freaking angry. So I can't really debate anything important.

 

[Lad]

I meant formal debate, but its interesting to see people talking about debating unformally. I think this is partly why I got into it. I know an ENTP and we used to debate all the time about politics and whatnot but he stopped engaging in them awhile ago. :sad:

I think formal debate is more difficult because you're debating with a stranger rather than someone you're comfortable with? Also, with informal debate everyone is basically on even ground while in formal debate people have had training in strategies that aren't even clever but used brutally to defeat the opponent. One of my favorite parts of informal debate is seeing what people can come up with on the spot and what clever little rebuttals they have.

PS: Just googled the socratic method. This is basically one of the first things formal debaters learn to bypass, because your opponent WILL destroy you with it. However, its a nifty tool against those who haven't learned their lesson yet.

Oops, in my case I meant I've done both styles of debate.

Formal debates you have to be a little more clean cut, almost like you're testifying in court. I think there's a little too much emphasis on presentation here and that's why I don't always like it. Ignoring that, it's fun because you're not -really- supposed to insult character, but like most, I do it anyways very carefully. Basically I try to make them look incompetent and even if they have an overall better position, each of their words begins to have less influence.

This reminds me of a psych study awhile back. Basically there were 3 candidates going for mayor. 2 of them were always debating publicly (slandering one another while trying to promote themselves), while the other did absolutely nothing publicly, but had far more signs all over the city. "Vote _______ __________" that's all it said. Never said his stance on anything, all that jazz. Well, low and behold, he ended up winning. That's -generally- what I meant when I said too much emphasis on presentation and why I don't particularly like formal debates.

Informal you can skip the pleasantries and virtually go all out. Most people beat themselves in these ones.

Also, I'm curious how you bypass the Socratic method. They're pretty inquisitive questions and if you fail you respond you will likely hurt your own campaign. If you do respond, then you did what the other person wanted anyways. Unless you have a landslide lead on a topic, you almost always have to hit fire with fire in these cases.

 

[ENFPie]

I have no clue what is meant by this post. What I think just happened is...
You: Debate = Making changes = ENFP
Me: ????

That OP is anti-debate....but doing it anyway just because, i think its fab!

 

[rowingineden]

That OP is anti-debate....but doing it anyway just because, i think its fab!

... Greetings, Earthling. Forgive me, I do not understand your strange... Earth-ways. For instance, you seem to be speaking English, and yet, your words still do not seem to make much sense. It must be a dialect which I am unfamiliar with.

 

[MissNobody]

I hate debate. I mean, if it's not something I feel strongly about, it's fun, but when my feelings are involved I tend to get really freaking angry. So I can't really debate anything important.

Me too! I'm much better at 'internet/forum debating' because I have time to calm down and think about what I'm going to say haha.

 

[ENFPie]

Ermmmm im confused!!!!! No its more than likely me, random mind jibba jabba!!

I just mean the guy who posted this making an effort to do something he's not used too...debating.....so i thought that was pretty cool....!!

Is that helping? lol...sorry i have to explain myself alot, you would think i'd be good at it by now :tongue:

 

[rowingineden]

Ermmmm im confused!!!!! No its more than likely me, random mind jibba jabba!!

I just mean the guy who posted this making an effort to do something he's not used too...debating.....so i thought that was pretty cool....!!

Is that helping? lol...sorry i have to explain myself alot, you would think i'd be good at it by now :tongue:

You did make a little more sense this time. I'm just being an asshole. :tongue:

 

[MissNobody]

Ermmmm im confused!!!!! No its more than likely me, random mind jibba jabba!!

I just mean the guy who posted this making an effort to do something he's not used too...debating.....so i thought that was pretty cool....!!

Is that helping? lol...sorry i have to explain myself alot, you would think i'd be good at it by now :tongue:

I think rowingineden was confused by your original post because it sounded like you were saying that for us INFP's to debate we need to become ENFP's...

But don't worry about it, I get what you meant :happy:

 

[ENFPie]

Oh god....guliable to fault...i also cant spell that well :tongue:

 

[rowingineden]

Oh god....gullible to fault...i also cant spell that well :tongue:

Le fix, madame. *bows*

:crazy:

I don't actually know much French, see.

 

[ENFPie]

Ha, why thank you :crazy:

Ps. I think we took over the topic :blushed:

Pps. Im upped to Newbie rank...YAY, must be all that hijacking of posts....must stop must stop

 

[caraez]

Oops, in my case I meant I've done both styles of debate.

Formal debates you have to be a little more clean cut, almost like you're testifying in court. I think there's a little too much emphasis on presentation here and that's why I don't always like it. Ignoring that, it's fun because you're not -really- supposed to insult character, but like most, I do it anyways very carefully. Basically I try to make them look incompetent and even if they have an overall better position, each of their words begins to have less influence.

This reminds me of a psych study awhile back. Basically there were 3 candidates going for mayor. 2 of them were always debating publicly (slandering one another while trying to promote themselves), while the other did absolutely nothing publicly, but had far more signs all over the city. "Vote _______ __________" that's all it said. Never said his stance on anything, all that jazz. Well, low and behold, he ended up winning. That's -generally- what I meant when I said too much emphasis on presentation and why I don't particularly like formal debates.

Informal you can skip the pleasantries and virtually go all out. Most people beat themselves in these ones.

Also, I'm curious how you bypass the Socratic method. They're pretty inquisitive questions and if you fail you respond you will likely hurt your own campaign. If you do respond, then you did what the other person wanted anyways. Unless you have a landslide lead on a topic, you almost always have to hit fire with fire in these cases.

Definitely, there is too much emphasis on presentation. Especially when the judge is a lay-person and doesn't quite understand the debate and just votes for who sounds most impressive. This has lost me several debates because I'm not a powerful speaker but I do have good points. Although, a lot of the time my point sounds more impressive in my head or I just don't communicate it well :blushed:

Bypass the socratic method: I don't know what kind of formal debates you have done but in Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum cross examination is when this will most likely apply. The opponent will try to get you to agree to something that will fail your side of the debate. The answer is, never answer yes or no questions, because that will almost always be used against you. Instead, elaborate and say, "It can but not necessarily" and if its obvious, you can go ahead and argue that your opponent is looking at it the wrong way or why it doesn't apply to this topic. But this way, your opponent can never say "my opponent agreed this is true and this negate the point he was trying to make". They can only attempt to argue it, but this way you can argue back without contradicting yourself. There have also been times when my opponent will say "its a yes or no question". Then I will say the question is too complex to be reduced to a simple yes or no.

Also, thanks Pie. Debate has helped me come out of my shell some and make me more extraverted, but I think I will always be a shy little INFP.