posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
Although this is not a comment on the strength of the arguments and thus not necessarily relevant to who won (I'd call it even money- though I won't
analyze why), I definitely would not say you have anything to be ashamed of.
As far as style goes,
You were better organized, had a very authoritative and in-control tone, your references seemed relatively impressive, and you were overall pretty
good, although I think you sort of sank to my level a bit when i stopped organizing in mid debate.
You presented a pretty diverse range of arguments, which can be advantageous, but to do that you have to remain very conscious of how you maintain
your organization and you have to be careful about word economy so that you can address all of your arguments to a sufficient depth without
sacrificing rebuttal (which you should emphasize a bit more).
You should attack socratic questions, not defend against them.
Here are the most advantageous answer scenarios:
1. You give the answer your opponent did not believe you could justifiably give, and you justify it. This usually involves disproving a false premise
in your opponent's deductive logic and should be made the most of.
2. You give the answer that your opponent wants you to give, and point out that you are doing so, then turn the logic against his argument. This is
usually just a minor point- a fire and forget barb at your opponent which makes you seem generally smarter and in control.
Rendering a question irrelevant and answering it is neutral.
Dismissing a question as irrelevant or escaping the need to answer is generally the least advantageous because it seems to be a defensive posture
rather than an aggressive one.
I'll cap this off this evening. Not sure when exactly. Maybe we can dry run the informal debate idea while we wait for judgement day.