Debates are life, the rest is just time to prepare.

As a student, I played classic policy Karl Popper debates. The first thing we learned was sparring. The rules are simple: two people are given a topic, such as "an orange is better than an apple", and they randomly determine who supports and who opposes the topic. After that, the speaker (the one in favor of the topic) has 30 seconds to present their argument. Then, the speaker who opposes has half a minute to present their case, and then both speakers have another turn. All this is given prior to the theoretical basis of logic, logical errors, exercises in rhetoric, and generally any serious preparation. I was surprised to learn that the average person can quickly come up with an argument for any topic, even the most absurd, and can do so convincingly at times. This surprised me, but I was also impressed by the creativity and quick thinking of the participants.

Further, there is a block for detecting other people's logical errors, the study of rhetorical techniques, and the development of public speaking skills, all in an atmosphere of intense competition.

Additionally, the ability to view an issue from different perspectives is being developed. Smoking is bad for health, yes, but consider the economic impact. And what a great social and psychological benefit it can be!

Arguments in life have become a platform for honing skills, as it is easier to appear right than to actually be right. With all other factors being equal, individuals who have extensive experience arguing, whether in formal debates, online discussions*, or in real-life conversations, have a significant advantage when it comes to appearing convincing to others.

Postmodern

An epiphany struck me during an exercise called "shadow fighting." It's a form of sparring, but against yourself. You present arguments one by one, dismantle them, then rebuild them, and so on. The key quality criterion was the equal strength of both sides.

I suddenly realized something: there is no such thing as absolute truth. Instead, there is only the ability to convince others of our point of view. How could I ever think that there were right and wrong answers? After all, we can always find arguments for and against any position. This idea seems to be common among debaters, as the very nature of the debate encourages us to to see the imperfection of any position. 

I felt much wiser, because I no longer saw everything in black and white. The world has become more complex and diverse, and I realized that there are many different perspectives on any given issue. At the same time, I felt like I had gained some important insights that others didn't have. They may think they know the right answer, but in reality, there is no such thing as absolute truth. As they grow older, they will realize that everything is relative and that we can all be wrong.

Harmful advice

Next, let's talk about debating. I want to describe a few things that you should keep in mind if you want to convince someone in a public debate. (By a public debate, I mean any debate where there are at least a few people watching.) I really hope you won't use these tips, because they can be harmful.

• You need to be able to quickly view information and understand how it relates to your interests. If you find information that contradicts your position, keep searching. This technique is called "motivated search". On the other hand, if you find a few good confirmations of your position, it's a good reason to stop. This is called the "motivated stop" technique. Why continue studying something else when the scales have tilted in your favor?

• Over time, you will learn to automatically ignore information that plays against you and focus on the right statistics and arguments. Remember, there is no need for forgery. Instead of inventing statistics, you should simply choose the most relevant ones. When an opponent presents an "unnecessary" statistic, you can always refer to less reliable sources or search for errors in the link between these statistics and the issue at hand.

• You should not forgive an opponent's arguments. This means that you should carefully record each fact they present and explain why it is not valid. If you leave even one argument unchallenged, they will use it against you. And if you commit the cardinal sin of debating and accept their argument, this will show a lack of skill in the art of debate.

• Aerobatics to prove why the opponent's argument actually supports your position.

• Keep an eye on the structure of the debate. Some arguments may be rejected simply because the opposing side did not connect them logically to the main idea. While it is possible for them to restore this connection later, it will take time and effort. The debate will not last forever, and they may just not have time to restore them.

• By the way, another tactic that is similar (and prohibited in formal debates) is overloading the speech with technical terms. The audience who is not familiar with these terms may think that this is a sign of a deep understanding of the topic. However, the opponent may overload their processor trying to understand these elementary phrases.

• You should be familiar with common logical errors and cognitive biases. This will help you identify weaknesses in your opponent's arguments.

• If the dialogue is getting dangerously close to your weak points, it's important to use all available techniques, including sophisticated ones, to keep your opponent from approaching them.

 • Another great tactic is to use a "duck" - a weak argument for which you have prepared a good defense. This will help you control the flow of the conversation and force your opponent to play on your terms.

• If you are participating in a debate as a team, it is important to follow a rule: never contradict your teammates. Always support whatever your partner says. This way, you will demonstrate the strength of your position in public. In formal debates, there may even be a penalty for contradicting your teammate.

Is something wrong?

At some point, you may realize that not all topics are equally easy to defend. Some can be more easily refuted than others.

Defending certain positions can be a challenging task for the mind, but it also shows a high level of skill as a debater. Some positions are boring to defend than others, as they seem to speak for themselves and prevent you from demonstrating your persuasive abilities.

And here, I would like to take this one step further and think about why this is the case and what the difference is between these positions. Maybe they are not all the same and not everything is relative? Maybe the fact that they are all grey does not mean they all have the same shade and can't be distinguished?

I admit, I didn't take that step at the time. However, it would have been a step in the right direction. Instead, I came back to it much later.

The idea, which I hadn't fully understood at the time, sounds surprisingly simple. Rationality involves honestly choosing beliefs that are easy to defend. Should think of our beliefs as a stack of papers. If we suddenly find a mistake in one of the papers, we can simply replace it with an updated version. Sometimes, a paper may be connected to others, so we need to correct those as well. Unfortunately, our self-identity is often closely tied to certain beliefs

This approach to one's beliefs implies endless preparation for debates, but only in these debates can you choose your position on any issue beforehand. And you always try to choose the easiest position to defend, which has the most real arguments. What is even more surprising about the rules of these debates is that you can change your position at any time. The goal of the game is to be on the winning side, and the main thing is to win.

Unfortunately, the way of thinking of a debater or a street fighter* is based on the exact opposite principles. The more counterintuitive a principle you can prove, the better your class standing will be. And changing your opinion or team – what could be more worse?

On guard of the Light

Now, I would not rely on the harmful advice from this article to support what I consider accurate maps. While this approach may have the advantage of allowing me to convince others, it also carries significant risks to my own thinking. My brain is always ready to slide into "debate mode", showing in all its glory the cognitive distortions that have been acquired over millennia of evolution. It really wants me to divide people into "us" and "them" and show where my intellect should be directed. The more I argue, the more I will distance myself from reality. It will become impossible to maintain control, and it will no longer be just a tool for eloquence; it will permeate my thinking. Surely, you have noticed how, when defending a position "in jest", you begin to believe in it a little bit?

But this post is not a call to give up on the debate. No way! Refusing to listen to an argument usually means that you have already made up your mind that position is incorrect. Moreover, you may not even want to hear arguments from "outsiders". There are more effective ways to conduct a debate, but they do not involve turning on "debate mode" as such. 

* - Here we need to say a few words about black rhetoric. In formal debates, there are rules prohibiting references to the opponent's identity and many sophisticated techniques. In real dialogue, these techniques are not used due to ethical concerns and the fear of physical conflict. On the internet, however, there are no such restrictions, so anonymous debates can be compared to street fights. Preparation for them differs from preparation for a formal debate. It is more like training for a series of battles with improvised weapons, similar to an athlete's training. Athletes have advantages, but they often lack experience with broken bottles or knowing how to select the right picket fence for serious damage.