How to correctly debate

By debate, I do not mean the court-style debate, where you and an opponent have to spout off as much information as you can on your own teams, and impress the judges. I mean the kind of debate where you and another person try and convince the other about a topic.

First, you need to decide if the person is able to be swayed. A lot of the time, people only argue because they think that the other person can be swayed the other way. People who believe in things that require a deep-seated belief in something (faith healing, conspiracy theories) generally can't be swayed. And some of the times, people just have mental problems (ex. Time Cube). Also, keep in mind if you're doing the arguing online or in public that you could convince observers that you are right.

First off, identify your position on the issue. If the majority of evidence for the claim falls on your side, you're in the clear so far. If the evidence falls on the other side, you need to come up with evidence of your own. It is the responsibility of the person trying to prove a point not shown by the evidence to show evidence that backs their claim. And as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

When you're presenting evidence, be sure to make sure it comes from a decent source. For example, you don't want to go to a Vitamin C maker/distributor's website for a study on the efficacy of Vitamin C. What you want to look for is an article in a peer reviewed journal. Nature is a popular one for biology/medicine, but there are ones for nearly every kind of science.


Next, present these things in an understandable way. Don't be cryptic in unveiling these facts, do it so anyone could understand.


Now for the most important part (and the most commonly screwed up). Let the other person rebut. The most common thing I see in online debates is people giving points, waiting a couple pages/days to pass, and then bring up the points again, ignoring the rebuttal towards these the first time he gave them.


As an example of how not to debate, here's a summary of the debate above.


Person A starts the argument, saying the government blew up WTC7. Person B asks them to give evidence for this. Person A says the burden of proof is on B, and waits. Person B, bored, gives reasons why the conspiracy is impossible. Person A links from conspiracy websites for proof that  his position is correct. These sites blatantly edit quotes from government agencies in the hopes that they can make people think they are correct. Person B points this out. Person A ignores this, and rebuts the other points. Several days later,  A brings up these same points. B asks for sources on his claims, noting that he already demolished the argument. A says he provided sources and that he doesn't need to do so again, and says he was never proved to be wrong.


Most people aren't like that, but if you want to be respectable in a debate setting, try not to be so bad as person A.