How do you know when you have won a debate?

[Biosophilogical]

There are never any winners.

Actually, I win debates quite alot. My debates are either me and my friends deliberately taking opposite sides of difficult issues to come to some form of middle-ground or me fighting for my belief/knowledge/opinion, and when I do it is normally because I believe my point to be correct. This is not to say I am stubborn, because when I am wrong I admit it, but when I choose my beliefs I tend to work through it on my own so it is like I already won the debate and am only doing a replay.

OT: Whenever I debate it is a deliberae attempt at a reasonable compromise (in which case a draw is actually a win) or I am confident I'm right to begin with which normally results in me convincing the other person ... or it's an opinion thing so it comes down to a matter of taste. In the second case I tend to consider it a victory when I have successfully rebutted every one of their points and they have conceded (which occurs quite frequently, probably because I can be a persuasive and intelligent speaker when I wish to)

EDIT:

on the escapist, you've one when you don't get a response. No one is thoughtful enough to say "hey, you're right, I never thought of it that way. I'll incorporate what you've said into my opinions" except me.

Hey hey hey! I've done that before! I actually got a friend out of a particular discussion which ended in that manner.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

There are never any winners.

ahh, youre one of those "give peace a chance" type people.
we are very, very different.
hi ^w^

You've clearly never encountered me in the past. ^.^
However, there are no winners. Only two pissed off parties.

I think I am going to enjoy talking with you ^w^
*hugs*

anyway,
the war does not determine who is right, only who is left.
and therefore, they win by default.

and the person who is slightly less pissed off is usually the winner.

 

[Jaywebbs]

Normally, when I'm debating with another rational person, it's when they begin to either repeat previous points or rephrasing what they have said that signals me that I've won.

 

[MrNickster]

When the enemy stammers after I have responded or, if the debate is online, he starts saying fuck as every 3rd word and is now calling me a '****** ****** jew with no life'.

 

[CloakedOne]

on the escapist, you've one when you don't get a response. No one is thoughtful enough to say "hey, you're right, I never thought of it that way. I'll incorporate what you've said into my opinions" except me.

Or perhaps they actually go off and incorporate what was said into their opinions rather than metaphorically giving themselves oral pleasure on a message board with an incredibly self-serving statement that can't be backed up logically?

Such a statement could not ever hoped to be backed up logically, not everything has to be in order to be valid. Is it so awful to take someone's word for it? If I were to say "I was walking down the street when I ran into a dog.." would you blurt out "you have no evidence to back that up, why should I listen to you?!" like a paranoid prick? It's a statement commenting on common politeness that demonstrates that the person who listened to the argument and has changed to agree with it is not so arrogant and/or stubborn as to not admit to anyone that they may have had flawed thinking before. I answered the question with a personal gripe but I still answered the question.

Yes, the "except me" part was deliberately self-serving, are you proud that you noticed that? And what would you call your response? I would begin by calling it an equally self-serving statement that advocates a prowess at observation about which you felt the need to tell me and everyone else on this page. You too could have kept such a blatant observation to yourself and simply went about your day much like the scenario that you create for us previously, but you don't: you wanted us to all note that you saw it. I did it to express an opinion about the escapists' tendency toward debate-related rudeness while at the same time getting a little satisfaction that I found an opportunity to vent in the form of two words instead of resorting to dedicating an entire forum topic about it. Thanks to your comment, I see now that asking the escapists to have a little maturity and admit when they are wrong is apparently too much to ask for some of them as you have demonstrated by nit-picking my little statement in an attempt to defend the act of abandoning a conversation rather than seeing it through.

In closing, I hereby admit that I was hasty and self-serving in my gripe, but my sin was not exactly something I was working diligently to hide. I apologize to anyone who thought that I was being unreasonable in that statement and I can admit that perhaps I was, but I do not apologize for the response here.

 

[Sephychu]

When the flaws in their argument are more obvious to them than the flaws in yours.

I don't think a debate should be a competition. Obviously it si different for competitive debating, but two people simply debating ideas is more about exchange and flow.

 

[Bourne]

When they resort to "making a point" by calling you names, correcting your spelling, or repeating themselves and/or ignoring 90% of a rebuttal post.

But I wouldn't consider that a victory, because most forum debates are walked away from with disdain on both sides.

 

[maxben]

You can only win a 3rd person over, those debating will never convince each other.
That's why any true debate needs spectators.

 

[The DSM]

When the other person has no reply.

Often the person wont agree with you, theyll just keep beliving what they want.

 

[Keava]

Usually? When your opponent looses temper and starts to show strong emotions instead calmly presenting his or hers arguments. Any sign of nervousness of the other side is a sign they are breaking, but they are just to stubborn to admit it.
Of course the best outcome is if you can cause your opponent to at least consider your view and then review his own, but in most cases people are way too ignorant and stubborn to even think about it.

 

[Freshman]

When your support is better than the other persons or they start using fallacies. in the second instance, you are usually the only person who knows you won, because pointing out to people that they have just made an error in their "logic" generally does not go well.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

so how do you know when you have won in a debate?

When I've reduced the other person to tears.

 

[Drexlor]

If the opponent runs out of things to contribute to the conversation.

 

[Spinozaad]

When the judges decide which debater won.

Oh, in a real situation? When you have convinced the audience/others. You can't win a debate by swaying your opponent. Of course, you can, but it's more likely that Hell will be proven to exist and located in Vancouver.

 

[DarkHourPrince]

When you make an obscenely religious conservative government candidate stop, stare at you for a few seconds and say in a stunned voice "t-that's.. a good point.."

 

[Amethyst Wind]

on the escapist, you've one when you don't get a response. No one is thoughtful enough to say "hey, you're right, I never thought of it that way. I'll incorporate what you've said into my opinions" except me.

Or perhaps they actually go off and incorporate what was said into their opinions rather than metaphorically giving themselves oral pleasure on a message board with an incredibly self-serving statement that can't be backed up logically?

Such a statement could not ever hoped to be backed up logically, not everything has to be in order to be valid.

Funny thing about that is: The definition of validity is to be logically sound, so, yes, yes it does have to be backed up logically to be valid.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid

Is it so awful to take someone's word for it? If I were to say "I was walking down the street when I ran into a dog.." would you blurt out "you have no evidence to back that up, why should I listen to you?!" like a paranoid prick?

Insults, surefire way to win an argument. /sarcasm. I wouldn't have any problem with your irrelevant example simply because it contains no attempt by you to claim superiority over others.

It's a statement commenting on common politeness that demonstrates that the person who listened to the argument and has changed to agree with it is not so arrogant and/or stubborn as to not admit to anyone that they may have had flawed thinking before. I answered the question with a personal gripe but I still answered the question.

Common politeness, yet a personal gripe. Somewhat contradicting terms there, sir. Don't ever claim 'common' anything, as you, like all of us, lack the God's-eye view to make such an assumption. Mistaking your habits for matters of course is the height of arrogance, especially when you have openly admitted it is your own ideal. To claim it as 'common' seems an awful lot like an attempt to apply your beliefs on others, which you lack the authority to do.

I also want to re-quote this sentence:

"...that demonstrates that the person who listened to the argument and has changed to agree with it is not so arrogant and/or stubborn as to not admit to anyone that they may have had flawed thinking before."

Have you ever heard the term Sophist before? They were a group of people around the time of Socrates who were more concerned with winning an argument than discerning truth from debate. What you are saying is very Sophistic, you want somebody to admit they had flawed thinking before, and nothing else apparently. In my initial response to your 'answer', I presented a pragmatic outcome to a debate that isn't centered on pumping anyone's ego, but rather that some positive action has come out of the debate.

Yes, the "except me" part was deliberately self-serving, are you proud that you noticed that? And what would you call your response? I would begin by calling it an equally self-serving statement that advocates a prowess at observation about which you felt the need to tell me and everyone else on this page.

Really? You think to weaken my argument by accusing me of challenging your prideful statement with a prideful statement? I couldn't possibly have been defending others from your insupportable claims, but sure, let's go with that =/

You too could have kept such a blatant observation to yourself and simply went about your day much like the scenario that you create for us previously, but you don't: you wanted us to all note that you saw it.

I'm sorry, I appear to have missed the part where I specifically mention myself anywhere in my resonse, could you point it out for me? As for working for the scenario I described, I am doing just that. My helping you with your attitude problems is a result of previous debates I've had with others, I'm working to make the world just a little more tolerant, you are simply the example du jour.

I did it to express an opinion about the escapists' tendency toward debate-related rudeness while at the same time getting a little satisfaction that I found an opportunity to vent in the form of two words instead of resorting to dedicating an entire forum topic about it.

And here's the crux of the matter. This 'rudeness' that you claim to be above, it is entirely from your point of view, there is no guarantee that others believe themselves to be rude, only that you believe them to be. Has anyone raised a concern about this with your or is entirely your thinking? Until you can get universal agreement on this matter, don't assume your moral code applies to everyone.

Thanks to your comment, I see now that asking the escapists to have a little maturity and admit when they are wrong is apparently too much to ask for some of them as you have demonstrated by nit-picking my little statement in an attempt to defend the act of abandoning a conversation rather than seeing it through.

Maturity...yes, admitting to being prideful, openly working towards self-satisfaction at the expense of others, insulting those who disagree with you, truly the markings of a mature individual.

I'm also not sure how you can claim that a person has abandoned a conversation simply because they they have no reply, within this very thread there has been the idea that not being able to reply to somebody else's arguments means that the debate is over. Yet you feel the need to have that person admit that they have lost rather than work from what they have gained from the argument? That is Sophistry rearing it's ugly head again, sir, and you should be careful not to go so far in your berating of other people's 'rudeness' that you are in turn not considered rude by a third party.

To quote Nietzche:

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

In closing, I hereby admit that I was hasty and self-serving in my gripe, but my sin was not exactly something I was working diligently to hide. I apologize to anyone who thought that I was being unreasonable in that statement and I can admit that perhaps I was, but I do not apologize for the response here.

Again, I'd like to think I'm not a Sophist, so I'm not looking for an apology here, I'm looking for you to leave with a greater understanding the truths of this matter and how you should work within them. It was good of you to admit that you were hasty, self-serving and unreasonable, it is a strong start.

Have fun, sir.