Debating well - by the world's standards

[BobRyan]

Shall we be measured by the world's standards... or higher ones?


World's standard of measuring debate;

The hierarchy of disagreement: The best and worst argument techniques


Good -- DH4. Counterargument

• This is the most convincing form of disagreement, argues Graham. But it requires work so people don’t do this as often as they should. In general, the higher you go on the pyramid of disagreement, “the fewer instances you find.”
• A good way to refute someone is to quote them back to themselves and pick a hole in that quote to expose a flaw. It’s important to find an actual quote to disagree with—“the smoking gun”—and address that.

Better -- DH5. Refutation
addressing the actual meat of the argument. In this form of disagreement, you offer an opposing case but very little evidence. You simply state what you think is true, in contrast to the position of the person you are arguing with.

example:

"I can't believe the author dismisses evolution in such a cavalier fashion. Evolutionism is a legitimate scientific theory."


Best -- DH6. Refuting the central point

• This tactic is the “most powerful form of disagreement,” contended Graham. It depends on what you are talking about but largely entails refuting someone’s central point. This is in contrast to refuting only minor points of an argument—a form of “deliberate dishonesty” in a debate. An example of that would be correcting someone’s grammar (which slides you back to DH1 level) or pointing out factual errors in names or numbers. Unless those are crucial details, attacking them only serves to discredit the opponent, not their main idea.
• 
  The best way to refute someone is to figure out their central point, or one of them if there are several issues involved.
• 
  This is how Graham described “a truly effective refutation”:
  • 
    
    The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
    <quotation>
    But this is wrong for the following reasons...

======================================================
Sadly - Often we see this --

Bad -- DH3. Contradiction

• a higher form of addressing the actual meat of the argument. In this form of disagreement, you offer an opposing case but very little evidence. You simply state what you think is true, in contrast to the position of the person you are arguing with. Graham gives this example:
  
  "I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory."

Worse -- DH2. Responding to tone.

• a slightly more evolved form of disagreement when the debate moves away from personal attacks to addressing the content of the argument. The lowest form of responding to writing is disagreeing with the author’s tone, according to Graham. For example, one could point out the “cavalier” or “flippant” attitude with which a writer formulated their opinion. But why does that really matter, especially when judging tone can be quite subjective? Stick to the material, Graham advises: “It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what [their] tone is.”

Worst -- DH1. Ad hominem, vitriol, acrimony, vilifying groups or people,

It involves somehow devaluing a person’s opinion by devaluing the one who is expressing it, or an entire group, without directly addressing what they are saying. (Basket of deplorables... that is a comment from the basket of deplorables...heretics)


==========================================
Now admittedly these are not the high Christian Standards some might prefer - they are merely 'the world's standards" from "BigThink".