How To Win Any Argument
One year ago, I remember losing so horribly in a debate that I almost cried. I was shaking in fear and you could hear it in my voice. As soon as I ended my speech the judge said, “you only went on for 30 seconds, you were supposed to speak for 4 minutes, you really need more confidence,” I was so nervous I couldn’t even respond, but now, one year later and a full 6 months of speech and debate, I finally know what to do, so much so that I compiled a full list of my advice as a debater to anyone wishing to win an argument or formal debate.
n1. Organize The Argument
[Use this argument as reference]
Premise 1: If there is a winner and a loser to everything competitive, then you must either win or lose
Premise 2: If competitive situations are common, then it is common to lose
Premise 3: Debating is competitive and common
Therefore, it is common to lose a debate
You see my argument above? It has what is called a “premise” and a “conclusion”. A “premise” is a reason why the argument is correct and a conclusion is what is correct or what follows logically from your reason(s). In order to stay consistent in winning, you should always organize not only your own arguments, but also your opponents. Take my argument from above, you can easily make rebuttals (also known as disproving an argument) from the given premises and arguments. You can either disprove the premises or the conclusion. I’ll give an example:
Take premise 1 of my above argument, it mentions the fact that most people win, however it neglects it further on in the argument. A loser always implies a winner, so if most people lose arguments then most people win arguments as well. You can even format this rebuttal:
Premise 1: If there is a loser, then there is a winner
Premise 2: Most people lose arguments
Therefore, most people also win arguments.
Overall, organizing your arguments into a premise to conclusion format allows for a much easier time in disproving your opponents arguments and defending your own arguments.
n2. Point Out Flaws In Logic
The easiest way to do this step is by understanding the many logical fallacies documented by philosophers such as Aristotle. To begin, a logical fallacy is an inconsistent (or contradictory) reason for an argument. The most important fallacies are ad hominem, appeal to a bandwagon, appeal to authority, appeal to nature, false equivalence, false analogy, and false dilemma.
I’ll go over the first three:
[1] Ad Hominem
[2] Appeal to Bandwagon
[3] Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem means to attack someone’s character rather than their arguments in a debate. If you attack your opponents character you never responded to their argument. It can simply be that the person saying the argument is bad rather than the argument itself.
An Appeal to Bandwagon is when someone says “if everyone does it, then I can do it” simply put, there have been various times where everyone has done something and it’s immoral. Take, for instance, slavery. Many societies have engaged in slavery but that doesn’t warrant that it’s ok to enslave people.
An Appeal to Authority is when someone says “if someone smarter/in a position of power said it, then it must be true” however this cannot be so for two reasons. Firstly, smart people can disagree amongst themselves, take the example of Steven Hawking saying that god doesn’t exist, now, obviously, Steven Hawking is very smart, however many other smart people have said god does exist. Such as Nikola Tesla, Rene Descartes, and Isaac Newton. Secondly, many smart people can make far-fetched claims, that doesn’t mean we are going to prefer it over a rational argument.
Studying up on other logical fallacies — such as the one’s I recommended above — will greatly increase how often you win.
n3. Know Your Opponent
Before any debate, study your opponent. Read their writings, their statements in regards to the subject, and finding any contradictory statements that they said gives you an advantage. Write down everything you need — such as conflicting beliefs your opponents possess about the subject you’re debating. Chances are they’re going to say the exact same thing they have been saying in public — giving you an incredible advantage as you can write prewritten rebuttals.
n4. Stay Calm
Whenever people debate, things often get heated. Don’t allow things to escalate, giving in and engaging in your opponents inappropriate behavior or provoking such behavior will give you a disadvantage. Firstly, it ends the discussion as soon as you’re mean and your opponent stops listening (as well as your audience). Secondly, it ends possible friendships that can happen after the debate — what if you like your opponent or your opponent has something helpful they could teach you?
n5. Research
Whenever researching, be sure to write all your findings in a google document. You should cite your evidence by stating the author, the date in which it was made, and a quote from the author proving your point. In addition, cite where you found the source. When researching, you should look for:
[1] Uniqueness — something describing the situation in the status quo (status quo means how it is normally) an example is if I were debating how we should regulate drugs, and I affirmed we should, then I would say how regulation in the status quo is doing well.
[2] Link Chain — which is a way of linking your argument out to this impact, this is basically an explanation of your argument
[3] Solvency — which is a solution or measure to prevent the impact that supports your side
[4] Impact — which is a consequence of someone not preferring your argument
Ideally, you should organize each and every one of these components in a google document. P.S. these debate parts are all organized in the way they go down a case in a normal debate round/tournament.
n6. Even If Clause
In logic, there’s a conditional statement. I’m sure you’ve learned of this in math class (but forgot). A conditional statement is when you say “if” and “then”, take the example of me saying, “if I write this article, then it would be perfect” although it is false, it accurately depicts a conditional statement. But how is it false? Well that’s an even if argument and it means that “even if you do this, the conclusion you stated does not follow” Look at the example above, you can simply say, “even if you wrote this article, it doesn’t follow that it’s perfect” If you say this, your opponent is required to prove that it logically follows that the article is perfect if you make it (as the burden of proof says so).
The Even If Clause is one of the best argumentation tactics as it concedes your opponent could be right at first and then disproves that their conclusion would follow.
n7. Use Weighing Mechanisms
Weighing basically means to explain why your impact — or consequence of your argument — is greater than your opponents. There’s various ways of saying this.
[1] Prerequisite — this is (by far) the best weighing mechanism. It means that your impact comes before there’s, take, for instance, the example of drug regulation. If I affirm that drugs should be regulated, it can be prerequed as regulation of drugs is counterintuitive and creates more usage of drugs.
[2] Magnitude — the size of harm provoked as a result of your impact compared to your opponents.
[3] Time-frame — how longitudinal is the impact as compared to your opponents?
[4] Reversibility—can the harm be undone? Take the example of human lives over the economy, human lives cannot be reversed while the economy can.
[5] Probability — if your opponents impacts are far fetched, you can outweigh on probability. This weighing mechanism always comes down to the link chain of you and your opponents.
[6] Evidence — you can do this weighing mechanism if your evidence is newer than your opponents, or if you have evidence and your opponent doesn’t. Evidence is a great weighing mechanism.
[7] Scope — how many people are affected across the globe?
n8. Rebutting Arguments
In debate, you must know your vocabulary so as to increase your chances of winning. Here are the two most important terms used in a rebuttal:
[1] Turn
A “turn” is when you use your opponents argument against themselves, take the example of someone saying that making students do homework is stressful for the student, you can turn the argument by saying that the impact is actually a good thing as stress prepares children for their life later on.
[2] De-link
A de-link is when you rebut their link-chain. Take the homework example above, you can simply de-link the argument by saying that “no, actually, stress is not increased as a result of homework” and then provide a source.
Moving onto how to give a proper rebuttal,
1) Always Flow Your Opponents Case
“Flow” means to write down. Basically, in order to respond to each and every point, you must be able to flow them all down. Make sure you get your opponents contention name, uniqueness, link chain, solvency, and impact. If they don’t have any solvency then you can easily outweigh on the solvency debate, and if they have a poor impact you can simply weigh against it or turn it. As for the link chain, you must de-link it (if that wasn’t obvious enough)
2) Write Your Rebuttal in a Google Document
Always write your rebuttal in a google document. Ideally, you should format frontling (responding to your opponents rebuttal) first and then the actual rebuttal. Whatever your opponents say against your case in their rebuttal, you must respond to. And whatever your opponents say in their case, you must respond to. Silence is compliance.
3) Use a Block-file
A “block-file” is a document enriched in prewritten responses to possible arguments your opponent may have. If you’re not in debate team, it’s likely you are going to have to produce one by yourself (that is, unless you find/steal one).
4) Do an Off-Time Roadmap
Whenever you are starting your speech, you must always go over whatever you will address first. For instance, if you’re going to first address your opponents contentions, then say that you’ll do that first and follow that by saying what you’ll do second — which is (most of the time) frontlining.
In summary, each and every one of these tips will help you to exceed in whatever kind of debate you engage in. Albeit, LD, PF, PD, or a debate that you have amongst colleagues. These skills gradually took time to develop and if you don’t do debate as a sport, I’d recommend you to read more articles or to come back to this one/use it as a reference for arguments you may engage in.
If you enjoyed this article, make sure to follow me and upvote this article so others can see it.
