Debate Techniques
A debate is an arena where, usually, one person presents a case and another tries to show that the case is invalid. It is often said that debates about politics, or religion, are useless. I don't think this is the case. In the case of libertarianism and capitalism (a topic I have debated many times), debates are helpful because most people are not aware that there is an alternative to right and left-wing statism. They are an opportunity to pass our central message.
Of course, two things stands above all in a debate, and that is honesty and clarity. While your opponent will get approval from most believers with emotional tactics and shotgunning, reasonable people reading your posts or listening to what you say will remember your arguments and how well you present them. Make honest and clear points, and make it whenever necessary. Have a structure to your case, and keep referring to it, to check if your opponent has addressed all your arguments or not.
Here are some recommendations on how to escape common emotionalist tactics and drive your point home.
* Using a story as an opener helps concretize your argument.
There are a great number of stories of government control and abuse, in the news, on the internet, and even in books. Draw from them to illustrate points, especially as an introduction. In telling or retelling a story, you are trying to draw the sympathy of the audience to the victim, but you are also illustrating your arguments. What you are really doing is, you are merely reminding people of what they already know : government doesn't work, individual freedom is better.
* Use the Ransberger Pivot.
Read my article on the Ransberger Pivot and get used to the technique until it becomes second nature. The Pivot consists of two steps :
1. Identify the underlying goal in your opponent's statements.
2. Explain why libertarianism best fulfills this goal.
The first part is perhaps the one that requires the most practice. Statists will tend to use specific examples, that may or may not apply to libertarianism at all, but the people who read or hear them will understand what they are supposed to refer to. For instance, a statist will talk about the monopolization of the media and most statists will implicitly understand that monopolies and corporate power are evil. Libertarianism is not a position that argues for monopolies or corporate power, but they implicitly think that anyone who is against them must disagree about everything. In these cases, simply point out that you share these premises with your opponent, and that he is being off-topic.
Latest Articles