Disclaimer: this guide will only work with Logical Debating. There are no moral guidelines on how to debate nor the intention to form opinions. The examples here presented do not necessarily represent the author’s opinion on the subjects displayed.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Taylor’s Guide on Logical Debating. Today, we are going to check some rules to make your points clearer when debating a subject, thus making your points more solid. There are some patterns that you should pay attention when debating, and some traps that you should avoid no matter what. All of these topics will be covered on this guide. So, let’s start.

Rule #1: Never use fallacies.

A fallacy is a premise that’s flawed because of a logical mistake along the way. The presence of fallacies on your logical reasoning is most likely to cast doubt on your whole point. Moreover, fallacies can be easily rebutted because they are flawed on their essence.

Here are some examples of common fallacies, alphabetically presented:

Ad Hominem: Ad Hominem is a latin expression that means “to the man”. Ad Hominem fallacies happen when a person merely attacks the other debater without any arguments to the question debated. A common example happens when, on a debate, a person calls another “stupid, without mental maturity and that hasn’t lived enough of that reality” without giving any supporting argument on itself.

Appeal to Ignorance: This one is dangerous. Appeal to Ignorance happens when someone considers the lack of proof a proof on itself. Example: “do you have any proofs that God does not exist? No? So, he must exist, since there’s nothing to prove it otherwise”. A lack of proof is never a proof on itself because it does not bring evidence onto the subject. Appeal to Ignorance can also be called as Argumentum ex Silentio (in a free translation, “argument caused by silence”).

Argumentum ad Baculum: Argumentum ad Baculum happens when someone uses a fear or a threat as an argument on a discussion. The most common example is the following: “you’ll burn in Hell for not believing in God”. Please note that this is no argument on itself, therefore, it does not bring any logical importance to the discussion.

Bandwagon Fallacy: One of the most common fallacies used - a person will incurr in Bandwagon Fallacy when using a statistical number to deem something as right. Example: “most people are in favor of homosexualism, therefore, homosexualism is correct”. The number of people that agree with the idea does not convert the idea to a correct stance. Remember: most people on the Dark Age believed that diseases were caused by malevolent demons.

Non Sequitur: Non Sequitur is a Latin term that means “does not follow” or “without sequence”. This fallacy happens when people use flawed premises to reach a flawed conclusion. Example: “according to a latest report, the number of child born in a full moon was higher than every other season. Therefore, full moons must cause child birth rates to rise”. There are many other factors that might have changed the report results - for example, statistical variations.

Proving Non-Existence: This is similar to Appeal to Ignorance. When a debater cannot prove his point with evidence, he might challenge the others to prove the non-existence of what he defends (example: “if you think aliens do not exist, prove that they don’t”). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. The burden of proof lies on the claim maker.

Statistics of Small Numbers: This fallacy is pretty common - it happens when someone shows few examples to prove a point. Example: “Jimi Hendrix could handle even acid, so legalizing drugs is not a problem at all”. Simply pointing at a few favorable numbers do not change the overrall statistic.

Weak Analogy or False Analogy: Weak Analogy happens when someone shows an apparent similarity that has nothing to do with the case in hand to prove a wrong example true. Example: “A cloud is 90% water. A watermelon is 90% water. Since a plane can fly through a cloud, a plane could fly through a watermelon as well.”

If you’re interested in fallacies, there’s much more to it - however, I lack the space to discuss about each and every fallacy on this space. Read the book “The Fallacy Detective” if you’re interested on the subject.

Rule #2: Use good sources.

Few things can make a good point such as a good source. However, many people might use bad sources instead of good ones, which will make a point weak. Here is a list on good and bad sources that can help you out when building your point:

Good Sources: Medical Publications / Specialized Associations / Great Media Corporations.

BEWARE! Great Media Corporations can still be biased when dealing with an article that only relies on testimony. Example “ex-gay claims to be cured, gives interview to MSNBC”. Since the “cure” cannot be proved logically, the article can still be a lie, because of the interviewed.

Bad Sources: Fan Sites / Blogs / Unreliable Media Corporations / Pro-Sites / Biased Sources in General (including your life).

There are few exceptions - such as a Pro-Site that has an article with a link to a Medical Publication, for example - but try to avoid these sources at all costs.

Rule #3: Be semantically precise.

Using semantically precise words will always make your point clearer. At first, “fight” and “struggle” might seem the same - they’re synonyms, after all. However, a “struggle” brings a different idea - meaning an exaustive, time consuming fight, usually with dangerous consequences to the “loser”, such as death. Therefore, try to keep your text as semantically precise as possible.

Rule #4: Use word definitions to prove a point.

Word definitions are clear and precise - therefore showing, without a shadow of doubt, that your concept was correct from the get-go. When using the definition, always give the link of the place on which the definition was gotten, so people can check it for themselves. A real life example that happened with me on a debate was the following:

Debater: “Alcohol isn't a drug. '-' I don't even know how that got into the topic. [...]”
Me: “Drug definition by Cambridge dictionary: any natural or artificially made chemical which is taken for pleasure, to improve someone's performance of an activity, or because a person cannot stop using it. (LINK) [...]”

Rule #5: Use proper grammar and spelling.

Okay, one error or another won’t prove you’re wrong, of course not. Specially if you write, for example, “incidious” instead of “insidious” - many spellings can be confused a lot. However, if you write “your” instead of “you’re” on every sentence, there might be something wrong. A good argument must be clear and precise, in every possible level.

My personal trick is: after posting (yes, after posting, not before, to create an urgency situation), pretend that you’re your (see what I did here?) worst enemy. Read your text, crush your fallacies and laugh at your grammar mistakes. After this experience, edit every error you were able to find. Do that until there’s nothing left to correct. Trust me, this works.

Rule #6: Don’t introduce theories you do not understand fully.

A theory should be used as a strong argument everytime you are able to do this. However, a common mistake is introducing a theory you only have a superficial knowledge on. For example, consider that on a “homosexuality” thread, you post about the differences between a “straight brain” and a “homosexual one”. If you don’t know about the theory fully (i.e. - thinking that the difference is cellular, when it is anatomical), you’re prone to do mistakes, which will fragilize and maybe even crush your point (in case the theory demonstrates the complete opposite of what you were defending).

Rule #7: NEVER, NEVER bluff.

This one is really important. If you create a fake statistic/a fake theory, the bluff will eventually be “called on”. When that’s done, you’ll have no supporting argument to prove the theory correct, and worse, you’ll be discredited for a long time. To prevent yourself from being called a “liar”, always search for the statistic firstly, then expose it if you’ve found convincing proof of its veracity.

Rule #8: Ask questions.

Questions can give you an in-depth of your fellows' minds. Adding up, their own logical flow can disprove the ideas showed by themselves. Using such a thing can be complicated at first, but asking questions is an important weapon one must always have at hand to debate.

Rule #9: Use people’s arguments against themselves.

This goes along with Rule #8. If a person disproves their own argument, this will give you some stance to show your point further, because a person is unlikely to disagree with a thought they had created themselves. This weapon is very strong as well and should be used whenever possible.

Rule #10: Moral guidelines are never logical arguments. Bible included.

Don’t get me wrong - one can always abide by a moral guideline for their lives, and I don’t think following the Bible is wrong nor right. However, showing moral guidelines as an argument is something one should NEVER do, because they have no logical reasoning to show the points expressed on these “documents”.

Bible has an interesting paradox - one Psalm says the following: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save”. However, even when saying that you should not trust men, the story of Bible states that the Bible was written by men. How can I trust these men to be telling the truth when they say the had a “divine inspiration” when they clearly say I should trust no men? This proves that, logically, the Bible is never a good source to be used on a debate. However, you can use it (and other “documents” as well) far from logical debates - that’s no problem whatsoever, as I said earlier.

Rule #11: Don’t insist on disagreeing if you started agreeing.

Many people carry on their points even when they already began agreeing with the other debater, due to pure stubborness. Now, I’m not saying that you should never disagree, on the contrary. Disagreeing is healthy and recommended. However, do not insist on disagreeing if you started agreeing with the other debater. It is always better to show that you concur with the other person than giving flawed arguments that break your own philosophy.

Rule #12: Don’t give vague replies.

Always show to the other debater that you’ve read his arguments/sources and that you’ve pondered about them. Play accordingly to the debate - this will show that you’re considering every idea, with an open mind if a true logical argument comes through.

Rule #13: If you don’t understand something, RESEARCH it.

No one needs to know about everything between Heaven and Earth. Researching a subject will give you a notion on the debater’s arguments and is likely to give you a new in-depth on the ideas contained by the discussion. So, do research what you don’t know, in order to gain points for you to use on the thread.

Rule #14: Always show what your links are about.

When giving a link to an external source, always indicate what the link’s about, be it with a brief introductory text (example: “here’s a Harvard research showing the damage of soda to the human organism: LINK) or within the link name itself (example: “Link to NASA’s Recent Meteor Studies”). This will make people aware of what to expect when clicking a link on a discussion. I think I won’t probably need to say this, but here goes: never Rick-Roll people on a discussion. That will make people mad and will spoil your public reputation on discussions.

Rule #15: Pure logic won’t always lead people to same results.

There are several lines of logical thoughts - so, there’s never a definite answer. There are logical aspects and logical conclusions to every point of debate, so keep this on mind when taking part on these threads - you can always find another point to validate your position. After all, no matter how logical the debate is, the moral aspect is always what will define your stance, because there is no impartial person in the world. Your ideology is what will determine what’s wrong and what’s right TO YOU. Keep this in mind - no matter how stupid someone’s argument can be, the opinion itself is never stupid. The only problem for that person is expressing logically why does he/she think in that specific way.

These are the 15 most important debating rules, in my opinion. Is there more? Yes, there is more. I constructed these points within a night, and some of the points I thought of (exactly 5 of them) were excluded of this guide, due to the fact they carried less importance to me. The point is: you should never lose your logical track when on a discussion. This is the most important guideline, expressed throughout this whole guide.

Cheers and have fun,
Taylor.

Great Guide. This should be stickied. (y)

Looks nice but i didnt understand half of it LOL :)
still thumbed up

Nice..But it was hard to understand,basically half of it like Star-K said was making no sense (For me,So don't take it as a bad comment or something) anyways good job man.

nice guide like rule #7

Really great guide, taylor. Hopefully this'll reduce the amount of ignorant posts we get in the debate sections, and make for more interesting discussion.. assuming they can at least understand what you're saying.

Thumbed :)

Edit: Stickyness!!!

This is a great topic on learning to debate.

Thumbed

Edit: If you're gonna quote the bible read it thoroughly just like any other book or whatever you said. There are things in there that make what you sail null as well.

A very interesting read. You are a very intelligent person, and reading some of these really makes sense. I am kinda glad I could understand most of it.

Definitely deserving of a thumbs up.

Great guide. I always try to debate logically, and this will help me a lot. I have a website with a bunch of fallacies on it, but you listed some that weren't on there, so thanks for informing me.

This is a really good guide. Extremely helpful. Thumb Up!

I didn't know people used guides to debate.
But this... is a concise guide, and I quite like it.

Nice work v..v Hopefully, many people will read this, as it is useful to nigh everyone. Good work, mate ;)

(Not telling you if I thumbed you up xD)

i like this nice guide

isnt this a guide but it is in the debate section

but anyway nice guide