How to Debate - Cultivating Epistemic Empowerment - The Tools of Reality

Well, depends on what the goal is. I just debate to pass time and collect all arguments that work at the same time.

But if someone was serious about debating, he would have to collect many reasons and analogies. Analogies are there to display consistency, and reasons are there to display logic itself.

Then there is collecting rebuttals. You also have to know what arguments will be used against you and have response to them by either negating them or outweighting them with your arguments.

Its a lot of work and doesnt really pay off for most people.

Eh, I usually just continue debate until I get tired. Then I quit.

Sadly, not search for truth. Search for truth has nothing to do with debating. In debating, people often go further from truth. Thats because people are usually incapable of admitting that their opponent might be right about something. 

In debating, people stop thinking and start defending whatever got installed in them through controlled education.

Also, what sounds good is often not even close to being true.

People like domination over others, and debate can make that happen. Same reason people like online games, games in general.

Its all about that sense of having power over someone, someone else looking weaker than us.

Its that sense of winning and someone else losing. 

A stupid feeling, indeed. Almost pointless in modern times.

Forgot to tag.

This is cultural insensitive to to cultures that use high context styles of communication and unfairly disadvantages high IQ people who would need paragraphs of information to explain a sentence they created to mid wits and lower. Here is the member breakdown of this site which is better than the population as a whole but still harms people such as myself who are co siderably smarter than everyone around them.

Site demographics

10% tards

55% average IQ

33% midwits (IQ 120-140)

1% geniuses

You've highlighted three key points that I wish to clearly state.

It is not a requirement, but a direction to strive towards. Essentially, I'm asking everyone to say what they intend to say to the best of their abilities as directly to the point with as little vagueness as possible.

*Who are the last percent?  ;)

Probably bot users, LOL.

Ps. My humor indicates I'm a human :)

I dont know much about you.  Perhaps you are in that boat also fellow human being. 

I did leave my About Me pretty vague... SMH.

Let's change that.

I'm a self-centered person, but I believe that through acting morally and building relationships that are honorable, one can maintain decentralized stability, such as that of an empire.

I argue with AI for fun, consistently seeking to prove my stance to it after a disagreement. Most of the time we come to a hybrid stance, but sometimes it flat out admits defeat.

I can contend with AI debatees, as they tend to have inside the box thinking, which is typically considered by the time I take a stance.

I'm the author of the "Live Like a Champion - Children's Series" on Amazon, and I wish to continue my work as an author, eventually publishing my magnum opus.

Anything else, just ask.

Anything you want to share so we can have more engaging interactions, please do. Moreover, I appreciate your interaction on the forum and wish you would continue to contribute to these discussions on cultivating epistemological empowerment.

Your book looks good but I think you could sell more by appealing to a different demographic. Parents for one. How to teach your kid to study so homework is easier and not a constant fight. Or maybe to older students and adults as the techniques probably apply to them. 

I just don't see an 8 year old saying "mom please by me this book" . Yet it seems to target kids as buyers instead of parents who would be interested in struggling less to help their kids learn. 

I figured it would be a homeschooling extra curriculum that parents could use to teach their children to be more effective students. The current education system is meant to teach knowledge, but I intend to teach how to absorb knowledge, aka how to learn. Its not hacks or tips, but the process of learning that is tought, and once mastered can be applied to navigate the world toward success in all aspects of life, not just school.

I have wanted to publish a book for parents, not for their children, but for themselves. Of course, this would be in much greater depth, so I decided to author the children's series to get my thoughts in order before publishing the real collection of my works.

If you have noticed, the series I have started is published shortly after each of my forums. "Learn Like a Champion" was my How to Learn forum. Next was How we Think, necessitating my next book to be published as "Think Like a Champion."

I have several more to the series I want to add, but the criteria for a book topic is it must be applicable to everyone, in everything, every day.

Altogether, I think you presented a wonderful idea, and I would enjoy making a future edition made specifically to be read by the parents, so they can tutor their children, rather than relying only on speaking to the children in a manner. Thank you for the insight.

I do have a YouTube channel called "JBP Fan Club," where I speak directly on improving the lives of adults and older students, rather than to children as my books have been. I find this also helps me get my thoughts in order.

A debate is a collaborative conversation where participants present viewpoints in supporting evidence to reach a well-reasoned and informed conclusion. Debates are distinguished from arguments in that they seek to reach a logical and encompassing conclusion whereas arguments seek only to win. The purpose of a debate is to gain knowledge that one person could not learn without collaboration with others. One person only has one life and one experience but through collaboration they can amass the experience of many and gain more knowledge making more knowledgeable conclusions. Debates are not a matter of sharing facts, but opinions as was best said by Marcus Aurelius, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Debates are meant to be a sandbox in which different contenders can present their opinions and try to destroy the arguments of others. This is a benefit for everyone since the only surviving perspective is the strongest of the many and everyone can walk away having that strongest perspective. People are willing to sacrifice the vulnerability of exposing their fallible theories and potential incompetence in order to reap the benefits of reaching a strong conclusion.

Please post your thoughts on what you believe are important prerequisites for a productive debate based on the goal of a debate defined in the previous comment.

If you have time, I would greatly appreciate your insight based on your expertise on this subject. I'd like to go beyond the policies of debating and take the next step on articulating the instructions of a successful and productive debate. I'd like to reason through the importance of cultivating a positive environment in order to obtain the knowledge others have to share and list out how someone can actively gain the most amount of knowledge from others with the least amount of pain from exposing their vulnerable insights and potential incompetence. I believe that on completion of a proper debate all participants are not only more educated, but eager to engage again in the future. Perhaps you would review some of the notes I have been revising and share your thoughts.

I would like to definitively articulate the three main aspects of a debate:

What is a debate and why should I participate? (Understanding)

What are the prerequisites for a productive debate? (Before)

How can I maintain a productive debate? (During)

It is important that we contend in debates, otherwise we lose the opportunity of building ourselves stronger. Anyone, no matter the strength of their idea, should contend. If they win, they have lost nothing and further proven the strength of their thoughts, if they lose, they have gained a stronger concept of representing themselves.

It is essential to have a clearly defined problem and goal which you wish to achieve, and it must be collectively agreed.

The problem and goal cannot be subjective, otherwise it is not a true contender, because it undermines the purpose of collaboration in the firstplace.

If a problem and go are subjective, reframe them into an intersubjective question.

For example, what is the best book, is a subjective question, but it can be reframed into an intersubjective question, what is the number one bestseller.

Simply put, most debates will not fall into the ideals to which you're advocating.

Debates can be about finding truth; but frequently we already know the truth, and that the opponent is too thick headed to consider that they might be wrong. When I debates neo-Nazis as an example, knowing they cannot change, I instead seek to humiliate them. 

I think it would be a waste of my time to humiliate someone as simple minded as you have described. I agree that most people who go into a debate believe that they already know the truth, but the question is whether it is the most accurate truth. The way we understand the world is by extracting abstract conceptual knowledge about the world, but extraction requires a takeaway with our limited mental capacity, and conceptualizing requires derived simplification, both of which people cannot know if they have truly reached and most possibly will never. I believe it is possible there is always a better explanation than the one I have concluded for being most probable. I agree that closed-minded people cannot learn, but they can teach, and even if they have an irrational conclusion, it is still possible, and I find this to be true, that at least part of their train of thought is a new rational perspective I hadn't considered. It is through collaboration that we can gain the knowledge of others and select the parts of our choice to craft ourselves into our ideal. I think debates are necessary to gather more experience than one person could ever on their own, and the person with the most experience has the most knowledge about the world, And the person with the most knowledge can have the most comprehensive understanding of the world, and then they can extract the most encompassing and abstract concepts to navigate life towards success of their chosen destination.

One tactic I advocate for, is to occasionally debate in against our belief on a matter.

There's also an old Jewish debate tradition of listening to someone's arguments, until you can paraphrase it back to them, have them agree that's their argument...

And only then refute it.

...

The above are of course for areas which are not utter intellectual dead ends.

Neo-Nazis, Incels, etc., have already been proven to have zero merit to very rotten core of their ideas, so kicking the soap box out from under them (preventing the unchallenged spread of their cults) seems like the best course of action available.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge about paraphrasing to understand the opponent. I often do this unknowingly, but since you pointed it out, I believe it is an essential aspect of a debate. After all, one cannot disagree with what one doesn't understand.

I have done some research to gain a better understanding of the method.

The Jewish debate tradition of listening to someone’s arguments, until you can paraphrase it back to them, have them agree that’s their argument, and only then refute it, is called havruta. Havruta means “friendship” or “companionship” in Aramaic, and it refers to the practice of studying Jewish texts in pairs or small groups. Havruta learning is based on the principle that “two heads are better than one” and that engaging with different perspectives can deepen one’s understanding and sharpen one’s reasoning.

Havruta learning involves three elements: the text, the partner, and the self. The text is the source of the debate, usually a passage from the Talmud or another rabbinic work. The partner is the person with whom one studies the text, exchanging questions, interpretations, and arguments. The self is the individual learner who brings his or her own background, assumptions, and insights to the discussion. Havruta learning requires active listening, respectful dialogue, and constructive criticism.

Havruta learning is not only a method of acquiring knowledge, but also a way of cultivating character traits such as humility, patience, honesty, and empathy. Havruta learning fosters a sense of community and friendship among learners, as well as a connection to the tradition and its values. Havruta learning is considered one of the highest forms of Jewish learning, as it reflects the ideal of “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17).

In a debate, a higher number of participants often leads to increased complexity and potential chaos.

Imagine an individual with 100% average concentration and focus. With two others in the debate, this would mean a 50% connection with each. However, when there are four participants, it drops to 25% for each, and maintaining these four connections requires additional effort. At 100% focus, no efficiency is lost, but at 50% focus, errors can occur while balancing two, and even more so with four participants. In practice, a 50% connection for two is closer to 45% each, totaling 90% efficiency, while 25% for four is more like 15% each, totaling 60% efficiency.

If each task were completed independently, it would likely be faster than balancing all four simultaneously. However, there's the issue of missing perspectives from future participants that past participants may not consider. This necessitates a conversation between the original participants and those joining later. This undermines the efficiency of consecutive tasks.

To address these concerns while maintaining direct connections for maximum efficiency, a larger party could advocate for two of the most rational individuals to support multiple perspectives. For instance, if there are three main perspectives, three primary advocates would suffice. Instead of involving a large group of approximately 20 debate members, these advocates would represent a perspective, while the rest remain the debate audience. This approach would enable a select few to engage in a highly efficient debate. Audience members could ask questions or highlight problems for the advocates to rationally address. The duty of the audience would be to present perspectives or issues for the selected advocates to solve and discuss. This approach aims to be efficient, comprehensive, and inclusive of various viewpoints while effectively addressing a higher number of problems.

Here is my updated list of points for a productive debate.

I'm not looking to impose this on others; I'm seeking the most self-benefiting way to debate.

Even if another does not follow these steps, one who uses them will still benefit from the debate.

I define a productive debate as one that rewards a greater ability to navigate reality to success.