How to 'win' a debate

It's important to establish what we mean by "winning" a debate. For me, it means showing that your logic and ideas stand up to scrutiny and criticism better than that of your your opponent.

I do not believe - as so many people seem to do - that you "win" a debate or argument by having the last word, being more insulting or making the other person feel worse than you do. I could do this whilst arguing that the world is flat, all it would achieve is to make me a childish, insecure or unpleasant person.

Also I do not pretend to be an expert or even good at debates. I do feel that, having been subjected to a lot of criticism and scrutiny as a 'tradtionalist' or 'conservative', I've gained enough experience to be able to hold my own.

So here are my ideas for a beneficial and effective debate.

1) Cite credible sources.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in debates is people using no or useless sources. When we are talking about contentious or controversial issues, it's crucial to have a believable source of backup. That does not include personal blogs or properganda groups. Credible sources could include well known newspapers, academic figures, known think tanks, works of authority, etc.

2) Distinguish opinion from fact.

"Labour are introducing ID cards" is a fact, "Labour MPs are idiots" is an opinion (one I would agree with!) but one mistake I see so often is people - often people who should know better - stating their opinion as a fact. In a debate, we should distinguish the two. I do this by presenting my opinion with short fore-statements such as "I believe that...." or "In my mind....." etc.

3) Avoid simple logical fallacies.

If a man with blue eyes committed a bank robbery, I don't think anyone would say: "This shows blue eyed people are bank robbers". Yet so many people would say, for example: "Two party xyz members were arrested for robbery. This shows us the sort of people who support xyz". Such sweeping statements are a particularly prominent issue in Thai politics at the moment.
Statements like this can only be justified if the number of people committing the act are above a statistical average.

For a useful list of logical fallacies, consult:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

or

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html


3) Stay on topic and don't award things to yourself.

Whenever I read or hear people say: "I beat you and ruined your argument" etc. I know it's a sure sign that they could not find anyone else to do it for them. It also strikes me - and I suspect, most people - as juvenile. Likewise, when people asses their own intelligence, I find it to be an almost certain sign of insecurity.

4) Don't be aggressive by nature

While it's natural that some debates will become heated, try to avoid them becoming personal slanging matches. In my experience, debates are more enjoyable and beneficial when they are done civilly. When criticisms become personal, it is human nature to become defensive and reluctant to consider the opposing opinion. This can only deter us from the truth.


5) Stay focused but also go with the flow.

One tactic for someone losing a debate is for them to change the subject. I recall one debate I had concerning ex Southampton FC manager Dave Jones and his criminal charges of child abuse. My opponent stated his guilt, I pointed to his total acquittal in court. My opponent responded: "But look how badly Wolves have been doing since he took over!". This is a total non-sequitur of course, but such tactics can work against younger people in particular.

So stay on topic but also be aware that debates can naturally lead into different topics, which is a good thing.

6) Keep to your own style, but also be versatile.

We naturally adjust our body language or manner to match another person. In a debate, a strong personality can use this to take you out of your comfort zone. For example, they may talk quickly or suddenly become aggressive in their tone. It's actually a similar tactic to a salesman who quickly thrusts out his hand for you to shake. It makes you feel committed or awkward and therefore makes you vulnerable.
To avoid this, simply make a conscious decision to keep to your own pace or manner. However, be prepared to change your manner or style when need be. For example, I know one blogger who can become lighthearted when criticised, serious when dealing with an important topic and calm when offering opinions. It sounds simple, but sometimes it isn't.

7) Don't be afraid to concede or compromise.

Above all of course, we should remember that every debate should have a purpose - even if that purpose is just fun - and should be beneficial. If it descends into a row or 'flame war' then don't be afraid of just 'walking' away. Nobody worthwhile is going to think less of you. Don't be afraid to concede either. After all, debates are for increasing our knowledge and understanding.

So these are my ideas. They are not ideas to I manage to stick to at all times and they are by no means extensive. I invite others to offer further ideas and suggestions.

Two excellent debates I have seen or heard recently:

Hitchens Vs Hitchens on Religion and the Iraq war:
http://tinyurl.com/d2jvlh

Dawkins Vs Lennox on religion:
http://tinyurl.com/d5cjmw

Pledge to PETA

PETA are at it again. According to local papers, the group have been protesting against zoos and telling people not to visit them. Not just certain zoos, you understand. Not just zoos that don't allow sufficient space to the animals or don't feed them enough. No, PETA just want to stop you visiting any zoos, period.

I've written two blogs about PETA in two other places. I explained why I thought the group were extremists (via a long selection of quotes) , violent (explaining how a convicted arsonist is on their payroll) and hypocrites (a prominent member had her life saved by animal testing).

The response was remarkable, not only did I get several abusive comments on my blog but for the first time, I got private emails offering me abuse. I've never had that reaction before or since. To surf the internet looking for people who disagree with your view and sending them emails full of abuse strikes me as the behaviour of an irrational extremist.

Now don't get me wrong, I know animals have rights. I know we should investigate claims of cruelty to animals, I know we should respect all human life. But PETA don't think like this. PETA prefer college students to drink alcohol rather than milk, they want to assault and abuse anyone who dares to differ with them, they want to cause offence simply for the sake of making their opinions noticed, they have no ability to do so in any other form.

I have always said the best response to PETA is to laugh at them and walk into KFC. But since their fascism seems so persistent, I will take inspiration from Peter Hitchens, who pledges to pend more time condemning the BNP each time their members post message son his blog. From now on, each time a PETA member sends me an abusive or hysterical email, P pledge to go out and eat meat. It might be bacon from the supermarket, pork from the market or a slap up Big Mac at McD's but I promise I will do it and I promise I will down every last bit of my meal, all in honor of our paint throwing, arsonist supporting, fascist dictating hypocrite chums.

Have a nice day, PETA people.

Bye bye Britannia

So what is the big deal concerning the removal of Britannia from our new currency system? After all, it's just a picture on a coin right? Actually there are many things wrong with it, we just need to look at the bigger picture.

The cultural and historical identity of Britain has been under attack for some time. School curriculums are far keener to teach appreciation and respect for non-Christian religions and cultures than British History. Reports of schools and local community centres "banning" traditional festivals or holidays - often in favour of a more "multicultural" celebration - are so widespread and frequent, they rarely make new headlines any more.

The attack is not confined to the present day.The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich - our leading maritime museum - declared in 1999 that the Nelson display was "old fashioned". The display - dedicated to educating viewers about our supremacy on the sea - was replaced by a display depicting British supremacy from "the view of the colonised". 

In 1993, Britain's top four museums were told they must increase both their visitor numbers of, and projects focused on, ethnic minority groups or lose government funding.

Many other examples exist of the war of attrition against our cultural identity. The reasons for the assault are varied, but foremost amongst them is Britain's membership of the EU.

Ever since our political elite entered us into the EU in the 1960s (it was disguised back then as the "common market") they have been hellbent on pushing through with all reforms and legislation necessary to keep themselves at the top. But there was a problem: the British are a cynical bunch by nature, and shared a healthy distrust at the idea of ministers from Spain, Belgium and France creating laws over England. That cynicism was picked up by Margaret Thatcher who rightly expressed reluctance to surrender the pound sterling or the sovereignty of Parliament.

So the descendants of Thatcher developed another approach. Slowly but surely, they started to chip away at the defences of the British. Whilst making noises about referendums and retaining sovereignty, they engaged in a policy of creeping normalisation. The Human Rights Act, the Maastricht treaty and the constitutional treaty were all signed away. Each contract taking us one step closer, each deal designed to be secretive, purposely too tortuous and complex for Joe Public to understand what was happening. It was, and is, the classic 'boiling frog' method of manoeuvre.

There was a related problem for our politicians : the union. England shares many ties with Wales and Scotland, but the latter two are happy to join the EU as it will bring greater recognition and finances to their cause. The English however, have little to gain from such a deal. The solution? Erode any sense of 'Britishness' or 'Englishness'. "English' is already a hated term by politicians - you will never hear Gordon Brown use it to describe a person - because it implies a distinct ethnic identity, and therefore risks racial alienation of British citizens. But now 'Britishness' is also under attack, and the establishment will pull off all the Orwellian tricks they can to erode it. Removing Britannia from our coins is just the first step.

Yes, we are told the older 50p coins will remain in circulation. That is, of course, until the Euro is forced upon us. Indeed, one might even question why the treasury are bothering to pay for production of new coins when we all know they plan to kill our currency ASAP. The answer is simple - it takes us back yet again to the frog in the boiling pan - it's a gentle shake up to warm us up for the big change that will hit us in the future.

We're told Britannia may return on two pound coins, We're told this change is no big deal. But we are given these assurances by the same people who told us we would be given a referendum on EU membership. The same elite who promised us the Lisbon Treaty really, truly, was not a constitution. The same cretins who promised us the Irish "no" vote to that treaty would be respected. The same motley crew that have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from surreptitious removal of any symbol of resistance or common identity that could inspire British citizens of any class or ethnicity to object to EU rule. It may start with the removal of a 50p coin, but it most certainly will not stop there.

More on the monarchy

This week I spent a little time on the UK Debate forum and participated in a debate on the monarchy. Sadly it descended - as so many debates do when people have a PC to hide behind - into name calling, shouting and playground style decelerations of self victory.

As usual when discussing our the British system of rule, I challenged anyone to name me a country that has enjoyed a longer system of stability without civil war, mutiny or coup. My opponent could only manage the micro state of San Marino (all twenty thousand or so of them) as a country with longer stability (not including their rule by fascists last century apparently) and as proof of the instability under our monarchy he managed the uprising by a few hundred people over one hundred and fifty years ago, as though any nation of millions of people could sit for centuries without a single incident. An incident of twenty deaths, while tragic, hardly approaches a threat to our constitution does it? Still, my opponent was not even aware that we had a constitution so perhaps my question was unfair.

One worthwhile point was raised though - the ongoing unrest on Irish shores. Putting aside the fact that Ireland is not our monarchy's or government's country of origin, and also forgetting that many of the problems in Ireland stem from the days of Cromwell ("Cromwell" is used in Ireland as a swear word), it is fair to say that British involvement in Ireland has been mutually destructive. One of the few true achievements of Tony Blair was to instigate peace agreements that appear to be holding together. Certainly though, Ireland has never slipped anywhere near civil war since the divide, despite the tragic events that have occurred.

My other challenge in these debates is to ask anyone to state which system they think wold be better for the UK and why. My opponent this time, not to be out done in his ignorance of our constitution (he also thought that our empire was still in its seventeenth century state) claimed that the Swiss "direct democracy" system was an "alternative", apparently not understanding the difference between a head of state and an electoral system.

There is no reason whatsoever why the UK could not use more involvement in its democracy and indeed, this is exactly what Popular Alliance want. The party pledge a referendum on issues such as EU membership and the death penalty and any other issues that are emotive and important.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I' not some arch-royalist that bows to y toes when Her majesty appears on TV, I'm simply a realist. I've lived in other countries with other systems of rule (my opponent's sensitivity began to get the better of him and he called the entire nation of Thailand 'stupid' at one point) and seen the pros and cons. I've learned to appreciate what many Brits take fro granted and I'm all the better for it.

There's no perfect system of rule because there are no perfect people. But the day that we throw away centuries of relative safety and stability and history for the "improvement" of president Blair and PM Cherie will be a sad one indeed.

Some good books I've read lately

 

Andrew Marr: A history of Modern Britain

Andrew Marr is a writer for the Daily Telegraph and his experience as a journalist shines through here. Not just because of the amount of detail involved in his commentary of post-war Britain - though that is thick enough - but simply in the fluency and lucidity of his work. Whilst many history books seem to naturally fall into disjointed sections - as though history could be chopped into small, disconnected pieces - Marr seems to effortlessly take the reader on a non-stop, six hundred page journey through time. It starts with Clement Atlee and Labour's ambitious, almost innocent, plans for a new nation through the return of Churchill for the last stand of the true Conservatives and onto the great depression, the massive impact of Margaret Thatcher and all that came after.

It's politically as neutral as possible and all the better for it. A great read for anyone remotely interested in learning more about modern Britain.

The Portable Atheist - edited by Christopher Hitchens

In this book, Chris Hitchens presents a wide selection of writings by atheists. This includes a mix that runs from Karl Marx all the way to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Each piece is readable as a stand alone chapter and that does indeed make the book portable. However, now that I have read several works by Christopher Hitchens, I'm starting to find his pomp and unassailable arrogance a little overbearing. This book is no exception, since Hitchens writes his own introduction for each section. No doubt this collection of literary blasphemy is valuable and enlightening, yet somehow it made me want to take a break from Chris' work and read some of the more down to earth yet equally informed works of his younger brother.

Londinistan - Melanie Phillips

Phillips is a writer for the Daily Mail and is Jewish. I mention her ethnicity simply because it's clearly so important and influential to her. Throughout this book Melanie presents a polemic yet often highly convincing argument for the dangers of Islamic growth in the UK. Apart from detailing important incidents, Phillips also presents her opinions on the causes of Islamic terrorism in Europe by covering the growth of individualism in Britain combined with post-war guilt and a rise in political correctness.

She also donates a lot of space to linking the Israel-Palestine conflict to our domestic situation and the antisemitic rhetoric of several key Muslim leaders, which does indeed make for shocking reading.

Although Phillips and I have similar views on many issues she covers in her book, I did not find her arguments convincing at all times, most notably when she argues that Israel is an innocent party in the Zionist conflict. Phillips is at her most convincing and informative when discussing domestic issues such as the rise of home grown terrorism. A very interesting and readable book.

Why support a small party like Popular Alliance?

People often ask me what the point is in supporting a small party like Popular Alliance. After all, we're never going to get into power right? What can such a small party do against the big three or even UKIP?

Fair points, but easily answerable. The most obvious response to these criticisms is that a person's allegiance is worth little if it is not based on principle. I have never voted for a party just because I thought they would win an election (though I did vote Labour for Blair's first election) but because I supported and agreed with their ideas. If we all want to vote for a party based purely on their odds, then we may as well scrap every party except Labour and Tory right now.

However there is a stronger, more compelling reason to join a party like Popular Alliance: it's the only way to truly reform the system. No I don't mean 'reform' in some sinister, ultra radical, Communist way. I simply mean clearing all the corrupt, disloyal, insincere politicians out of Parliament.

Let's face it, there is little to no ideological difference between the big parties anymore. Imagine Boris Johnson switching to Labour or John Denham joining the Lib Dems, it's not atall difficlult is it? What this means is that each of these groups is under the grip of the same lobbyists, the same money politics and will behave the same way.

The only cure for this is to form a party from the ground up. A party that is built on solidarity and a need for change and, most of all, from people with principle. There is no shortcut to this, because trying to find one would mean going begging to the kinds of people we have just talked about.

And small parties can make a difference. Many councils in the UK have resident's associations on their board. Small parties in parliament can often tip the vote on big decisions. Labour (the old one) was formed by working people. It can be done.

So while it is unlikely you will see us - or any other minor party - running the country anytime soon, it's still, in my opinion, a crucial job we are doing in laying the foundations for a party to grown and strengthen in the future. Still, the clock is ticking for the UK and we need all the support we can have, so get involved!

Christmas time

My family always have a traditional Christmas. It's gift exchanges in the morning, followed by a big slap up lunch, then a movie with an optional nap and finally drinks and cards in the evening. Then Boxing Day was the time Dad and I would go and watch some team stuff us four or five nil.

. This year though, with my son running up a big private hospital bill, we'll be keeping it lean. Never mind, younger kids don't worry about ipods or cars, they just enjoy the fun and appreciate what they get.

What will lie ahead in 2009? Well for me there will be another addition to the family. It's an exciting time, but I'll also be keeping focused on my long term plans for business and life.

For the UK the credit crunch aftershock will really be felt next year. Let's just pray none of us are causalities. That's really all we can do about that.

Enough waffle. Merry Christmas to all readers, bloggers, conservatives, leftists and Saints fans. But not Spurs fans.