The Dewar’s GuiDe TO

DEBATING

The Dewar’s Guide to DebatingWords by Jen Dziura

Everybody loves a good argument. Not unproductive yelling

that ends in tantrums, tears and hard feelings, but well-informed

spirited contention. Verbal jousts that end, if everything goes right, with

a self-satisfied feeling of accomplishment, heaps of self-esteem, and an

increase in you having fun potential by a factor of about a bajillion.

sure, it’s fun to argue, but winning rules. here’s how to do it.

LeT’s Face iT:

3

Bar-room arguments are more a way to pass the time than a way to change anyone’s mind. Even the most impres-sive of casual debaters is more likely to develop a rep as a person who is “good at arguing” than to actually prompt people to change their views. They’re like trial lawyers who get robbers off the hook – everyone’s impressed (in a weird way), but no one really thinks they’re “right.”

Why is this? Why can’t we just argue people into agreeing?

Think about the last time you changed your mind about something. Were you bullied into it by fancy pants argu-ments? Doubtful – no one’s ever really

MinD-aLTerinG 1-On-1

intimidated someone into chang-ing their minds. Instead, you prob-ably changed your mind as the result of a calm, reasonable discussion with someone you already respect, who said something you weren’t expecting; that wasn’t so bad, was it?

Here’s the trick: people don’t really change their minds based on the sheer force of logic. Do you think goths spend hours trying to find the right match of clown-look and crow-look because their makeup provides excellent solar UV protection? No. People make decisions based on how they want to see themselves; they think something makes them look cool, so they do it.

4

Effective debating isn’t about throwing arguments at a wall to see if they stick. It’s about methodically leading people to change their minds in a way that is consistent with how they see themselves. Can you make your point of view con-sistent with a positive self-image for the person you’re trying to persuade? If the answer is yes, then you’ve got a shot.

The mind does not like to hold contra-dictory views. If something doesn’t com-pute, we’ll make sense of it by finding a middle ground. That middle ground depends on how strongly we believe either side. Here’s how it breaks down in real life:

Let’s say I like my best friend very much, and then I discover that he owns the entire discography of a terrible band on CD and vinyl. If my respect for my

friend was originally stronger than my hatred for a band whose drummer sounds like a bad ringtone, I’ll probably come out of the experience liking the band a good deal more and liking my friend just a little bit less.

How can you use this to your advantage? First off, it’s easier to persuade people who already like you. Just understand that you’ll be spending a bit of the credit you’ve built up with them.

Start from a position of common under-standing. If trying to convince your independent, cinema-loving friends that a certain series is a great achievement in filmmaking, start by subtly reminding them that you are a lifetime Film Forum member, and leading them to agree that the main man destroyed as the fun-lov-ing, yet disciplined sergeant.

5

PersuaDinG an OPPOnenT Vs. PersuaDinG OnLOOkers

and more determined in his original convictions, even if he’s no longer quite sure why.

A more effective technique in this case is to stop thinking of this person as your “opponent” at all. Instead, he is your friend, a person with whom you have much common ground. Buy the man a drink. Begin with beliefs you hold in common. You need not set out your case ahead of time; instead, lead him there step by step, making him think he has reached each conclusion himself. Personal compliments and/or pats on the back may be helpful.

Establishing Common Ground

Formal debate is concerned with persuading an audience. When there’s an audience, you can feel free to make your opponent look stupid, provided you can do it without making yourself look like a jerk.

If there are no onlookers, then your opponent is your audience. This is much trickier. In this case, you can’t “win” by trouncing your opponent; no one has ever changed their mind as a result of having been made to feel stu-pid. This kind of “win” will just make your opponent frustrated, mad at you

6

arGuMenT execuTiOn

not surgeons are simultaneously the most effective and dangerous people on the planet.

Congratulations, you have now gotten exactly nowhere.

The key to keeping an argument on track is organization. Imagine your argument not as a single statement, but as a sleek, concise outline: one main idea, and a few reasons why.

Are any of those reasons conspicuously weak? Kill them off. Better to have two good reasons than two good reasons and a feeble argument that’s only going to get smashed in front of you. Better to send in two samurai than two samurai and a pet rock.

Ok, so you’ve learned to leverage good vibes into victory. But it’s not always that easy…

You may have noticed that most casual arguments get off track pretty quickly. You’re arguing that a certain band was a billion times better with the original singer. Your buddy thinks that the new lead singer is a rock demi-god and the sheer socks-blowing-offness of the band’s new album speaks for itself.

You’ve got three reasons for your posi-tion. Your buddy jumps on the weakest of the three. You defend the weakest of your points, forgetting the stronger two. It all ends in an argument over which singer could take the other in a game of table tennis and whether or

7

PLayinG by yOur Own ruLes

Throughout the argument, always go back to the structure of your argu-ment – don’t let your opponent dig in to just one point and lose the big picture. Make him address your argu-ment in its totality. This is why you have more than one justification for your main idea; your “reasons why” are like showing up to the parking lot with a posse, you want to make sure wherever your opponent goes, they got your back.

It’s also good to begin your point by defining crucial terms. Most people view defining terms as a formality, something to get out of the way before getting on to the “real” argument. This is to your advantage. Once your oppo-nent has agreed to your definition, he’ll probably forget he did it. That means extra zinging when you bring it back up later. “You’re contradicting yourself” is always stronger than “you’re wrong because I say so.”

8

The a TO Zs

Ad HominEm AttACk: Latin for “to the man” (rather than “to the argu-ment”). Refer to this any time your opponent attacks your credibility, mor-als, or brand of sneakers.

BAndwAGon FAllACy: The claim that an argument must be correct because of its popularity. Try pointing out that majorities have believed in slav-ery, alchemy, and the doctrine that mag-gots arise spontaneously from meat.

CorrElAtion doEs not EquAl CAusAtion: This is a clear sign that your opponent’s logic is starting to fall apart. Now is the time for your verbal lunge. Take the argument that the rea-son we eat turkey during Thanksgiving is because the bird happens to be the least intelligent of all domesticated farm animals. While potentially arguable, it is still clearly ridiculous. Just because two phenomena happen at the same time doesn’t mean one causes the other.

9

division: Assuming that because something is true of a whole, it is also true of its parts. Just because a certain band was one of the greatest epic hard-rocking bands of all time, doesn’t mean that their lead singer didn’t come off a tad pansyish.

ExCludEd middlE: Considering only the extremes (also called a “false dichotomy”); for example: “Intelligent aliens must be visiting the earth, because it’s ridiculous to think we’re alone in the universe.” This ignores the possibility of unintelligent life on other planets (why not a planet populated by flowers?),

intelligent life that hasn’t yet developed technology, or aliens who think we’re a bunch of losers.

FAlsE dilEmmA: Incorrectly assum-ing that only two options exist. “Either we spend Christmas at my mother’s, or we sit at home watching TV. Holiday programming blows, so we’re going to my mother’s.”

GAmBlEr’s FAllACy: Delusional betting such as, “I am going to win this pool game. I usually have a one in three win rate, and I lost to the last two players.”

10

Gambler’s fallacy

HAsty GEnErAlizAtion: Forming a conclusion based on too small a sample size. “Of course men love women in overalls. My last two boyfriends thought the house-painter look was hot.”

insult to injury: Beating someone in a debate, and then talking trash about his intelligence, mother, or body composition. Have some class; stick to the arguments.

juxtAposition: The error of think-ing that two things are related in some way just because they’re next to each other. It would be a bummer to

appear in the newspaper for some great accomplishment – on the same page as a retrospective about the worst criminals throughout history. Juxtaposition in an argument can sound like, “I saw you with Joe, and he’s an artist, so you must be one too”

kEttlE BlACk, pot CAllinG tHE: A phrase employed to expose hypocrisy. This usually involves calling someone out on an accusation they’ve made, when they happen to be guilty of the accusa-tion’s subject themselves. The anthropo-morphisation of household implements engenders it with a sense of whimsy.

11

Juxtaposition

loAdEd words: Using language that is biased towards one side. A vegetar-ian and a carnivore might agree to just argue about “meat” rather than continu-ally referring to “the flesh of innocent creatures” and “tasty barbecue.”

middlE Ground: The fallacy gravi-tating towards the middle in an argu-ment just because it’s the middle. Respond with something like: “Look, if the album sucks, saying tracks 1-6 are ok isn’t going to rescue it.”

nAturE, AppEAl to: An “appeal to nature” is an argument that whatever is natural is good. “It’s natural for men to dominate women.” Of course, farm-ing, medical care, and reading could be considered “unnatural,” and “your entire family having the plague” is really quite natural.

onE-sidEdnEss: Presenting evidence for only one side when other evidence is available. If you’re arguing in favor of a romantic getaway in Ethiopia, mention-ing the food but not the warlords might be considered just a bit misleading.

poisoninG tHE wEll: Trying to dis-credit a person before he even makes his argument: “Everything he says is a lie, but go ahead and listen to what he has to say.”

quEstionABlE CAusE: If you want to speak some fancy Latin, try post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”), and you’ve almost won the argument for sheer effort. “Question-able cause” is when a person assumes

that one thing caused another simply because it happened first. For instance, “I switched to decaffeinated just before he/she broke up with me, so that must be the reason I’m brokenhearted.”

r E d H E r r i n G : R e m e m b e r i n that one movie when they kept saying “Communism is just a red herring?” Me neither. It refers to the introduction of irrelevant information as a means of diverting attention. Use it to buy your-self time (but tenaciously call out oth-ers who do so).

strAw mAn: Attacking an incorrect, often crudely simplified, version of one’s opponent. Saying, “You’re just arguing with a straw man” can imply that your position seems much more sophisticated than it really is.

tAutoloGy: A proposition that depends on its own conclusions. “That used car salesman is completely honest. Just ask him and he’ll tell you how hon-est he is.”

undErwEAr, imAGininG Audi-EnCE in: A common technique for ner-vous public speakers. Overusing it can lead to overconfidence and dizziness.

vAnity: A good way to gain ground in an argument is to appeal to the vanity of others. “You’re smart enough to make that connection without me having to explain it.” Or, “You have experience in retail, so I’m sure you understand my point about this department store’s stock price.”

12

wEAk AnAloGy: “The government should ban unlicensed archers from shooting with bows and arrows. After all, private citizens aren’t allowed to own nuclear weapons.” Of course, all analogies are weak in the sense that they aren’t really about the thing they’re referring to – they’re about something else that’s supposedly parallel to it. Anal-ogies can almost always be attacked in that they aren’t, well ... analogous.

xAntippE: The wife of the great phi-losopher Socrates, she argued with him all the time. After one heated debate, she emptied a chamber pot on his head, prompting him to remark, “After thun-der comes the rain.”

your AudiEnCE: Never forget for whom you are arguing. Pointing out a guy’s tautologies can make him look stupid and you look smart – unless you’re doing it at his birthday party, in front of his friends, in which case you look like the guy who just killed the festivities.

zEno oF ElEA: Ancient Greek debater who used his powers of logic to prove that motion doesn’t exist and that objects can’t exist separately from one another. Remember, with your newfound powers of debate comes a great responsibility not to say something that makes you sound com-pletely insane.

13

Vanity

cOunTerinG an inTiMiDaTinG OPPOnenT

aDVanceD TechniQues:

14

making an argumentum ad cravat, but now you’ve knocked him down to your level regardless.)”

Or this one: Your opponent is a nuclear physicist, and you majored in theater arts. Try this: “It’s a little intimidating to be arguing with a nuclear physicist (now you’re identifying with the audience, pro-vided that they are not also nuclear physi-cists), but let’s see if we can take this mas-sive quantity of scientific information and make some sense of it.” (Now you’re the reasonable one, and your opponent is some kind of extremist. Congratulations, you’re on your way to winning!)

You are arguing against an opponent who is more articulate, taller, and fan-tastically better-looking than you are.Plus the fact they went to some fancy Ivy League sissy school? No problem.

Try this: “Mr. Prescott Wells III here may have gone to Harvard (if holding a beverage, raise pinky), but does that really give him expertise into matters of policy/Nü Wave/the human heart? (That should cover most everything). That necktie probably cost more than my rent (we all love an underdog), but I’m still going to have to take issue with his premises. (Prescott probably wasn’t

Your only real hope when putting forth a sickly argument or getting completely dominated is to turn your opponent’s weakness against them.

A better-spoken, better-looking, more qualified opponent may impress onlookers – but those onlookers iden-tify with you. Your greasy hair, bad posture and vague smell of dissolution

can be powerful assets, if you play them right.

The principle is: that which is named loses its power. The best way to defuse your opponent’s intimidating qualities it to call them out: nothing makes an expen-sive suit look so foolish as pointing out that someone is wearing an expensive suit in the middle of a dive bar.

Examples...

15

TiPs anD Tricks

backeD-uP-aGainsT-The-waLLisMs

16

2. It looks like you’re really reaching for justification on that point. What can your opponent say? “Um ... no, I’m not.”

3. Does it make you feel good about yourself to think that?

1. Demand that your opponent provide “proof” of anything that could be construed as a fact.

17

5. Referring to dictators is trite. And if you do feel compelled to refer to your opponent as a sheer force of evil,

try something more exotic, like Pol Pot.

4. Well, you can use statistics to prove anything.

18

7. I would have agreed with that as a teenager. It sounds like you’re conceding something, but really, you’re implying that

your opponent’s arguments are juvenile. Cute.

8. Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom. Never fails.

6. Are you sure your conclusion follows logically from your premise?

19

doing the thinking for them, in a way they will latch onto because it makes them seem smart, and right.

Begin with something like “Well, that’s certainly been a lot of infor-mation! So, if I had to tie this all together, I think the most important thing is clearly....”

Any listeners who are lost – or afraid of being put on the spot for an opinion – are now eating out of your hand. You are going to make it easy for them.

First, Clean it up

By the end of an argument, there are usually lots of little points on the table that no one who isn’t taking notes is going to be able to make much sense of. Your audience’s minds are occupied by the last clever one-liner they heard.

You are trying to persuade. You don’t want to leave your audience mucking about in their heads, trying to draw their own conclusions. You want to capitalize on their natural laziness by

brinGinG iT hOMe: ParT 1

20

Remind the audience of the most pow-erful points from your own argument. Show that they best meet the standard. Give a little room to your opponent: “While it originally seemed that the facts pointed to ‘no,’ I think it’s become clear over the last twenty minutes that initial appearances can be deceiving, and we’ve come to a ‘yes.’”

To take a point from pinstriped Oxford-type debaters. If your opponent drops any of your points, you win those points by default. In a casual argument, make sure you emphasize the importance of any points your opponent failed to address. This is basically the debating equivalent of a top-rope flying suplex.

False sense of security

Explain what the big picture is, leaving some room for either arguer to win. “The main question is whether there are Weapons of Mass Destruc-tion in Providence, Rhode Island.” See how it still sounds like a question, like you’re the moderate, weighing both sides?

Explain how the question should be decided. “It really comes down to the evidence, and the sources for that evi-dence.” Now you’ve created what looks like an objective standard, which leads, of course, to your side winning in a sup-posedly objective face-off.

brinGinG iT hOMe: ParT 2

21

of course, didn’t his position turn out to be an embarrassment? Surely, we would not want to be embarrassed by making the logical mistakes he has.

You, and your crowd of onlookers, have come so much further than that, and you have done so together.

Being a great debater isn’t about making others think you are a great debater. It’s about methodically guiding the minds of others, making them come freely to your way of thinking. Soon enough, you’ll have people buying you drinks and hoisting you on their shoulders like a true champion.

tactical sympathy

To really convince onlookers, say something like, “Remember, the real brunt of my case was the assertion that we should help endangered seals because the Inuit depend on them, and while Joe here has had plenty to say about pandas and bald eagles, he hasn’t had any response to this very fundamen-tal point.” (Of course, now is the time to exaggerate the importance of whatever points it is that Joe happened to drop.)

Paint your opponent as a nice guy who, sadly, has failed in his search for the truth. You have sympathy for him! But,

brinGinG iT hOMe: ParT 3

22

PrOVe yOur resPOnsibiLiTy, nOT yOur caPaciTy.©2007 DEWAR’S, WHITE LABEL, THE HIGHLANDER DEVICE ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS AND DEWARISM IS A TRADEMARK. IMPORTED BY JOHN DEWAR & SONS COMPANY, MIAMI, FL. BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY - 40% ALC. BY VOL.