Argue Like a Philosopher: How to Win a Debate

Debates follow a certain rhythm, proceeding from one argument to another between you and your opponent like a tango. For centuries, philosophers have developed different strategies to navigate and win debates. This article will guide you through the fruits of their wisdom and help you acquire this indispensable skill for smooth sailing through your future arguments.

Debates have a simple structure. Typically, they consist of a set of back-and-forth arguments and counter-arguments. Before entering a debate with someone, you must not only prepare your own arguments, but also anticipate those of your opponent. Aside from gathering all the necessary information you may need to support your argument; you must also be the first to critique it. Once you identify the weak points of your argument, you can take your time to plan how to redeem it.

A philosophical essay, much like a debate, is structured by presenting your argument, presenting its counter-argument, and then redeeming your initial argument. This technique will prepare you for any attacks on your stance and allow you to masterfully defend it. Don’t pick easy counter-arguments. Choose the ones that truly make you reconsider and develop your initial argument in depth. 

Step 2: Form Your Arguments Wisely

Every argument is composed of a set of premises and a conclusion. The conclusion is the goal of your argument, i.e. what you are trying to prove. The premises are statements that support your conclusion. For instance, if you were arguing about the necessity of physical exercise for mental well-being, you could use the following premises: (1) “physical exercise increases serotonin levels” and (2) “serotonin improves mood”.

Your conclusion would be: “Physical exercise improves mood”. Arguments are not formed haphazardly, but follow a specific structure, very much like mathematics! Premises (1) + (2) = Conclusion. Even if you already have in mind how you’ll support your arguments, take some time to precisely identify each premise and conclusion. Ask yourself, “What am I trying to prove?”, “How am I proving it?”, and, most importantly, “Do my premises add up to the conclusion?”. Answering these questions will help you stay focused and organized during a debate. 

The way to win a debate is to persuade your opponent to accept the conclusion of your argument(s). To do so, you must find a common ground, something that you both agree on, which would serve as a foundation or starting point for your debate. The common ground should include one of your premises. The more premises your opponent accepts, the more likely they would be compelled to accept your conclusion.

Choose premises that you know your opponent is more likely to accept or ones that appeal to shared values. The common ground doesn’t have to be obviously related to your conclusion, otherwise your opponent may be reluctant to accept it. Sometimes, you must camouflage your premises and phrase them in a way that would ensure their acceptance.

Let’s pick a controversial topic like drug use and see how we can navigate it in the context of a debate. I’ll play the devil’s advocate and start the debate with a general premise: (1) “Happiness is important for human beings”. If you accept that premise, I can follow by saying that (2) “Activities that allow humans to experience happiness should be encouraged”. And, if you agree, I can proceed with my final premise, (3) “Many humans have reported experiencing happiness under the influence of drugs”. If you agree to this statement, you will be compelled to accept my conclusion that “Drug use should be encouraged”.

Whichever premises you accept compel you to accept whatever conclusion follows from them. The starting premises of your argument should act like a Trojan horse, ensuring their acceptance by your debate partner. Of course, you should also beware of the Trojan horses your opponent will send your way! 

There are different strategies to invalidate arguments. Learning how to identify logical fallacies in an argument will not only help you undermine your opponent’s position but also protect your own by avoiding them. Unfortunately, the most common fallacy in debates is ad hominem, which is when your opponent targets you instead of your argument. For example, if you were condemning caffeine consumption due to its negative health consequences, your opponent could try undermining your argument by saying: “But you drink coffee!”.

Despite its sentimental appeal, this argument is a logical fallacy, because whether or not you consume coffee is irrelevant to your argument and the topic of the debate. Other common fallacies include appealing to emotions and authority. Your opponent may try to provoke certain emotions while making their argument or mention certain related authority figures to support their claim. Such forms of sentimentalism have no logical value in the context of a debate.

Now, let’s learn to recognize certain argumentative patterns that are logically invalid. Many arguments follow a pattern of circular reasoning, where the premise presupposes the conclusion. For instance, an argument can conclude from the premise “Many scriptural verses say that God exists” that “God exists”.

The argument is invalid because its premise presupposes the acceptance of its conclusion. Another logical fallacy is ad hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), which is when a correlative relationship is assumed to be a causative one. For example, “Whenever I help others, I feel happy; hence, helping others causes happiness” is an argument that confuses correlation with causation. There are many logical fallacies that you can learn to identify in order to spot the weak points of your opponent’s arguments. But most importantly, keep the debate respectful and enjoyable for both you and your debate partner.