3 ms·

> You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you p

> You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you probably know more about them. That's a good way to repel people from ever engaging with you and instead find ways to work around you. Moreover, you can't actually "constrain" the discussion unless it's deliberately structured that way (like what lawyers do in a court). You've got to respect and address any alternative framing that your "opponent" is operating under, they're not going to comply with an arbitrary framing of an argument that you provide, just because.

asdfman123 6y ago
I find it's pretty easy to frame the debate, generally, though. When they bring up off-topic points, you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question." Now, you become an annoying ass when you try to turn every discussion into a debate, and try to win every time. Don't do that. Sometimes it's better to let other people win or just feel heard. But if you want to win, that's how you do it.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  > ... you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question." But you just said your M.O. is to deliberately force the opponent to operate in a "tiny airspace" that you define. So, there's not really "plenty of room" to discuss those issues they brought up. That pisses people off, it's seen as an aggressive move and can easily backfire. Framing the debate is perhaps the most difficult task towards "winning" a debate.
  - asdfman123 6y ago
    I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm actually describing. I agree -- you should not try to debate people in casual conversation with the goal of winning. Even if they're logically incorrect in a few places, their underlying values are still valid, so you need to work with them to find a solution that works for everyone. Trying to "win" can definitely backfire, so you should do it sparingly. In truth, the only place I really debate people is on the internet, most visibly with my pro-Trump relatives on Facebook :). However, the person I was responding to was talking about "how to win debates," and that's how you do it. Yes, if you want to win, you do need to be hard nosed and aggressive (I prefer gently guiding them down the garden path until they realize it's too late to turn back). Whether or not you should do it is a different point entirely, and to be frank, I completely agree with you there. (Meta note: do you see how I'm actually making a belated attempt to frame the debate right here, and it's not necessarily as aggressive as I describe? Really sometimes it's just needed to establish clarity.)

asdfman123 6y ago

I find it's pretty easy to frame the debate, generally, though. When they bring up off-topic points, you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question." Now, you become an annoying ass when you try to turn every discussion into a debate, and try to win every time. Don't do that. Sometimes it's better to let other people win or just feel heard. But if you want to win, that's how you do it.

crispyambulance 6y ago
> ... you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question." But you just said your M.O. is to deliberately force the opponent to operate in a "tiny airspace" that you define. So, there's not really "plenty of room" to discuss those issues they brought up. That pisses people off, it's seen as an aggressive move and can easily backfire. Framing the debate is perhaps the most difficult task towards "winning" a debate.
- asdfman123 6y ago
  I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm actually describing. I agree -- you should not try to debate people in casual conversation with the goal of winning. Even if they're logically incorrect in a few places, their underlying values are still valid, so you need to work with them to find a solution that works for everyone. Trying to "win" can definitely backfire, so you should do it sparingly. In truth, the only place I really debate people is on the internet, most visibly with my pro-Trump relatives on Facebook :). However, the person I was responding to was talking about "how to win debates," and that's how you do it. Yes, if you want to win, you do need to be hard nosed and aggressive (I prefer gently guiding them down the garden path until they realize it's too late to turn back). Whether or not you should do it is a different point entirely, and to be frank, I completely agree with you there. (Meta note: do you see how I'm actually making a belated attempt to frame the debate right here, and it's not necessarily as aggressive as I describe? Really sometimes it's just needed to establish clarity.)