How to Debate Effectively Techniques for Prevailing in a Debate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DK on July 22, 2009 at 10:33am

Excellent post !
And so needed here.
Perhaps, in addition to rules there could be a "helpful suggestions" section where this could have a permanent spot.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Darla, ADMIN / National Director on July 22, 2009 at 10:37am

Thanks, I agree and was thinking the same

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charles B OH SW State Director on July 28, 2009 at 2:19pm

Great post! Now let's throw in tips for Conservatives.... :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by erniegs on August 1, 2009 at 1:53pm

Charles with all due respect. Drop the Liberal / Conservative rhetoric. We MUST make our attacks based on what is best for America. Whether it is a Liberal family or a Conservative family, we must address ourselves to how all of the issues affect our children.

We can WIN this thing as American Citizens, using Higher Taxes, Blue Pills versus the Red Pills, discontinue spending, Balance the Budget, get GOVERNMENT out of our lives....................Period.........................

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jingo Jane on August 2, 2009 at 5:02pm

Erniegs. I don't see you're response as dealing with reality. There's a large group intent on forcing socialism on America. They are generally liberals. No one could be both a conservative and a socialist. There are two sides here now. We are on one or the other. There's very little middle ground when destroying the authority of our constitution is a goal of one of the groups. Today's political scene cannot be approached without using or thinking conservative and liberal.

What's best for America is to protect our constitution. That's the side that I'm on and I'm conservative.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew Weitzenkorn on August 4, 2009 at 10:21pm

I agree that the words" liberal" and "conservative" have morphed into words which carry negative connotations, definitions of which would resemble nothing close to that in Webster's Dictionary. We the People must keep clear heads while listening to our Congressmen and Congresswomen discuss and debate certain issues because we have a tendency to let emotion rule our words, to become fixated on a single statement or a single point and not hear all that is being said. If those we elected to represent us took the time to actually hear what their counterpart is saying, took the time to actually hear what we are sayng, they might be surprised how small the differences really are. But, because we all have the urge to prove " I am right and you are wrong", we rarely listen to the entire arguement once we hear something we feel is not in our favor.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by doctorhugo on August 1, 2009 at 2:25pm

Betsy. This writer makes absolutely no allowance or consideration for technique and strategy to knock your opponent off his/her stride and put them in a position where they'll shift from reason to emotion, a sure way to lose in debate when one party anticipates and the other doesn't.

You make some valid points, but then go astray.

With this comment:
"You can't know anything about the border issue, unless you have lived it. So Lou Dobbs is less credible than someone who has lived it would be, and especially for many, many years in one of those border states hardest hit" ...
you have a debate of sorts on your hands.

You have treaded out on to the thin ice, by suggesting with an authoritive aire, that noone, unless an indigenous border resident, can possibly have a viable and correct opinion. That is not correct. The loquacious Mr. Dobbs and I have concurring valid opinions on the border. As many of us do we know that it is a behavior of irresponsibility by our elected leaders who have a very real responsibilty to secure our borders in the interest of national security. As a matter of fact, Article 9, Section 4 of the Constitution states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, "and shall protect each of them against invasion..." . In addition elected officials all violate their sworn Oath of Office by advocating on behalf of open borders and making that which is illegal..., legal by daffy-nition. The USSC was guilty of that and demonstated what 'legislating social change from the bench' is all about when in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are within the 'jurisdiction of the states they reside.' A footnote to their ruling stated that, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.". You don't say? The majority opinion justices need some tutellage from my 11yr. old grandson on the intent and limitations of the Dred Scott decision as it applies to the proper interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and to our previous USSC decisions. So now the term "anchor babies" has become part of the acceptable lexicon. In constitutional law there are entanglements, one might say, that occur when interpretation goes beyond that intended. As a bad interpretation creates 'bad' precedent that then can be used for even further corruption of the original intent.

I realize that I may have gone a bit further than one might anticipate, but in the interest of being circumspect it seemed a good idea. You see...Mr. Dobbs had advocated that same position I just did without making the legal references. An illegal by any other name remains just as illegal. An enabler by any government title is still an enabler. For those, in my not so humble opinion, who oppose border security are advocating for open borders. When you do that you are, in this constitutional republic, suborning treason! I mince no words as that is just what Little Georgie-boy Bush did.

Ball in your court.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ryan Welch on August 8, 2009 at 3:31pm

doctorhugo-SIR:
You are correct, but more importantly you systematically explain your point in a very liner, concise and persuasive manner. I am working on educating myself on effective debate techniques and I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by doctorhugo on August 8, 2009 at 7:14pm

Ryan. I have not had any formal training on debating. I'm a mere high school grauate who is self-educated beyond that. I just approach it from a logical point believing one s obliged to make their case with factual data , not mere contentious ranting, as much as possible. When there are no verifiable facts to support one's position and you comment from the position of opinion it behooves you to make the case by intelligent reasoning if you are to convince others. That's what I've endeavored to do here and everywhere I've posted.

The problem here is I see people so deeply entrenched in the positions they've taken they refuse to seriously consider a logical and reasoned alternative and may well, unknowingly, serving Obama's interests, so I'm moving on and turning off my topic notifiers. I"ve challenged them on numerous occasions, all to no avail.

This nation is literally under seige from within. Obama has threatened us more than any outside threat we've faced in our history. There is no more time to waste on those who have closed minds and are locked into merely defending their positions and are dismissive of 'reasonable' scenarios that are very real probabilities, not possibilities.

Good luck to you Sir and as I see we have a commonality as veterans I'll close with Semper Fi......semper.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ryan Welch on August 13, 2009 at 9:39pm

Thank you doctorhugo! Semper Fi!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pidd Hunt on August 13, 2009 at 12:12pm

This was on the Eagle Forum. Makes sense if a person is able to hold onto their temper. !! This is looong.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation


The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.


How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum


Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.


How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.


Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.
Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is www.learn-usa.com/.



Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joseph E. Bierce on August 18, 2009 at 10:59pm

The Delphi technique I studied 30+ years ago certainly did not look like what you have described above. Where did you come by such a description?

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page