Even so I actually did set up a way to win debates on both the offensive and defensive side as well as simple tips for those who are trying to do a little better. For now I will only give ten, partially because these ten rules are generally applicable to everyone in every situation. Here goes!
1: Axioms Need to be Stated
Yes, I know we all hearing things that are obvious as day over and over again and I know that we don't really want to explain things that are just as obvious, but explaining the obvious is actually the primary element of debate because it is the way to Enlighten others of your arguement. It is imperative that one would take the time to simply state the obvious and be as complete as possible so that loopholes and those that feed on them maliciously cannot be found.
2: Don't use Adjectives
I know for the most part people are going to say "What?!" but this actually a very serious tip. Though your opinion is important, and by no means do I say never state your opinion or make your dislike of something clear, do not ever attempt to use subjective terms ( often adjectives, but adverbs are applicable as well ) to validate yourself nor use subjective situations, unless purely hypothetical and appropriate, to validate yourself either.
Commonly there are mistakes when using Adjectives and they are used to invoke emotions which shouldn't be there, for instance the word "Stupid" in terms of an idea downplays that the idea, no matter how valid, is more than likely wrong. That does not mean that you cannot think something is stupid and if you feel that you need to express it do so, but don't do it in the debate! It's the best way to discredit yourself and lose not only respect but standing since people who offend or attack are often seen as attempting to validate themselves through maliciousness no matter how valid their arguements or information are.
3: Be Concise.
Though obvious this one is often overlooked. People often say "You shouldn't post one sentence answers" but that is an error. You should post as little as possible while making your point as clear as possible, and if you can sum everything up in a single sentence then do so. Giving side information and tidbits is not recommended.
Example 1: Inconcise Arguement against Religion X and For Issue Y
I do not believe Religion X's Doctrine because the diety within it does not support [My Issue] and thus is evil because what kind of Diety with [Ability X] wouldn't support my idea? That diety was formed back in the 90's anyway and has no place in modern culture even if supposedly he was born from a Virus. I also don't like donuts and I could care less if you do because donuts are made from Lard and that's disgusting and I cannot believe [Diety] supports Lard. The followers are all hypocrites anyway and should side with me because from a non-religious point of view I'm right!
Versus:
Example 2: Concise Arguement against Religion X and For Issue Y
I do not believe in Religion X's Doctring because the Diety within does not support [My Issue]. I find that my issue is too important to disregard.
Now while this was just an example to make it obvious which sounds better you'd not believe how many people actually commit this act ritually ( I admit I'll go overboard with explanations as well ) and many of the best EDers actually cannot seem to stop committing the act. They go off about things that are either not applicable even though they seem to be or use Ad Hom [ Next to be Explained ] to validate themselves.
No. It's just no. Even though you can win debate through this method it actually erodes at your capabilities because it becomes habit to add in unneccessary information.
4: Ad Hom // Fighting Against Ad Hominem
First what is Logical Ad Hominem? Though there are plenty of answers to this Ad Hominem can also be restated as Appeal to State of Being ( AtSoB or SoB ) which is a logical fallacy because it uses a current but unrelated to the subject State to discredit or validate an arguement.
So now we know what it is how about what is it not? Well Ad Hominem is not simply calling people names. If the Arguement is not attacked nor an attempt of discrediting the opponent or the arguement via SoB statements is made it is not Ad Hominem as in logical debate. There are various definitions including Ad Hom as simply any mean statement. Anyway more examples for clarity.
This is Ad Hominem
Mary Argued that Jack's idea was stupid and called him as such solely because he was a Janitor when the subject was finances.
This is Not Ad Hominem
Mary Argued that Jack's idea was stupid and called him as such because it was a long disproven idea.
This is Ad Hominem
Joe argued that John was wrong because of his religion.
This is not Ad Hominem
Joe stated that he thought John's Religion was horrible, stupid, etc. and then supported viable proof that John was wrong.
Now, many times it's not so clear because there is also the other-side of AtSoB arguements, such as the evil "Positive" SoB which often fools people almost instantly including myself.
This really is Ad Hom
How can [Diety] who has [Glorious Power X] allow [Moral Crime]?
This is also Ad Hom
John B. can [ give unconnected activity here ] and thus I think he's correct.
This is known as validating an arguement based on ability. For instance if John B. thought 1 + 1 = 5 ( which we will assume it equates 2 ) but can do Calculus the Ad Hom automatically invalidates anyone else solely because John B. can do Calculus no matter how wrong he is.
This is actually a common arguement.
Another Ad Hom
John B. knows [ give a closely related but not exact subject matter or General Field ] and is a master in it so he is a good source!
Another common arguement; it defeats others by using Appeal to Authority wrong ( False Appeal to Authority or FAtA ) such as saying that a master in Biology with the Sub-field Microbiology should know everything about something a Botanist is more qualified to answer. Lets say John B. is a mathematician. He is a Master Mathematician but his Master's is in Accounting. Should he give you advice on the Arithmetic that a Mathematician who also studies and knows Physics would answer best? No. And vice versa!
Of course this section got rather long, and long winded ( so much for being concise ) but I'll close it here. I know that there is more to Ad Hom, but I'll let you correct or add as you so please.
5: Debate isn't about Winning!
This is actually a true statement. Debate is not the same as arguing, in which the difference lies in the fact that instead of winning the actual goal in debate is often to come to a settlement on some issue giving rise to both the pros and cons and deciding which is worthwhile. If you debate with this in mind you'll find that not only do you get a little smarter but it is easier to work with conceding.
6: Concede, Concede, Concede!
Hey, if you're wrong then you're wrong. Don't drag it through the mud. Now if there is inconclusive evidence provided that outweighs your evidence you do not have to concede to the evidence, but however at least make a mental note that if you cannot either find something stronger than the other evidence or something more concrete on the other evidence there is a chance that the other person is correct. Being wrong is part of life; be wrong and move on.
7: Use Psychology!
The best state for a debate is a placcid state. Be friendly without insulting and use general ettiquette ( which is covered in another thread ) and also try and address whomever you're targetting by their name ( not "hun" or otherwise as that gets on other's nerves ) and actually checking the spelling. Rather than delve into depth on how to win people over, since a lot of the top 6 work well into that if you followed them such as conceding with grace ( not making up an excuse ) or demanding a concession just for the sake of publically recognized victory ( humiliation never won anyone over ) if worse comes to worse simply stop responding to the idea gently moving the debate along. If the person refuses to discontinue badgering the same point discontinue debate with them, and even allow them to "win" ( though that can backfire at times ) because as said debate isn't about win/lose streaks, and if it is for you then perhaps you should re-evaluate your tactics.
8: Be Timely, Be Wise
If you're going to debate then post in a timely fashion. If you're busy give a reason as to why and be polite about it; if you're opponent is not timely ask "if they are busy" or something of the sort to confirm their dedication to you. If the person is doing twenty things at once and disregarding you simply tell them that you'd like to stop ( you needn't wait for a response ) and move on to another thread.
9: Dedication!
If you create a thread don't leave, unless the thread dies, after one page whether met with high amounts of ridicule or not. Not only is it rude to simply leave posters high and dry who decided to give you their time but it also begins to count against you. ED has a credit system in which people begin to look out for, or at, other EDers. For instance if a good EDer shows up and posts somewhere people will come, whether active or lurking, to watch at times while if you've a reputation for abandoning your threads, making joke threads, refusing to concede and simply leaving, or any other bad behavior then people will begin ignoring you.
If you are going to abandon a thread then state so either in your OP at the very top or in your final post stating it's your final post. Also posting "Closed" and reporting your own thread for removal is a great way to clean up the ED as well as make sure people don't get confused about the topic.
9: You aren't God...
So stop playing god. If you see a thread which is misplaced though it's also in the ToS is it really neccessary to post in it, especially something derogetory? No. How can anyone respect you if you continue pretending you're a moderator? Quietly report the thread and move on with your life, because as we all know the best way to perpetuate bad behavior is to reward it with recognition.
10: Have Fun
It's a game, and I know taking issues seriously matters, but the chances of the Government and all of America or whatever issue you're discussing will suddenly be resolved just by applying it to Gaia Online is low. Don't lose your head, which happens alot ( yes, me too ) and don't feign anger or any other offensive traits which are not in your favor. A few jokes here and there never killed anyone, though intensive debate should really stay as concise as possible, but making friends in the ED and all over GO is probably better than being a stiff-necked "I hate you all!" type character.
Besides, it's bad karma. ^_^;
Feel free to add anything you think would help, or even better, revise my ideas to create even stronger ones. If we do well enough we might even get a sticky for beginning debators!
Ha! I joke.
Please Contribute.
11. Purposeful Equivocation:
I didn't come across this until today because I didn't think that it would ever be a problem, however we have indeed found, we being myself I suppose, a case in which a person committed Equivocation in order to discredit an arguement on purpose. Normally these fallacies are accidents or well-planned and controlled situations using one definition in place of another and not both definitions, however today I found a person using both to act as one.
Words such as "Fat" or "Disease" which have both medical and social connotations need to be used with care when building Logic Tables and Grides, as do all other words that have multiple meanings or divided meanings amongst the social classes and the ritual medical terminology.
For instance lets take the Arguement of John B.
Purposeful Equivocation
1. Transportation Vehicles are Release Carbon Dioxide
2. Carbon Dioxide is hurting the planet
3. Humans should disallow Transportation Vehicles.
Now this arguement Logical but it is not Sound due to the purposeful Equivocation. "Transportation Vehicles" should be "Motorized Vehicles" and in truth should have the words "Most Commerical" before it. Not all forms of Transport release any Carbon Dioxide, and as far as I can tell Bicycles release nothing of the sort.
Be wary, fellow EDer's, for as I find more of these problems I will bring them to light here, but until then you will have to fend for yourselves. If you see a new problem please do show it to us so that we may be empowered.
12. Collecting Sources:
When you get a source make sure it directly deals with the issue at hand; do not refer to databases and other situations in which a person has to do something in order to get the information. They are not obligated if burden of proof is on you to do anything of the sort and in truth that can be an automatic concession.
