THE DEWARS

GUIDE TO
DEBATING
The Dewars Guide to Debating
Words by Jen Dziura
Everybody loves a good argument. Not unproductive yelling
that ends in tantrums, tears and hard feelings, but well-informed
spirited contention. Verbal jousts that end, if everything goes right, with
a self-satised feeling of accomplishment, heaps of self-esteem, and an
increase in you having fun potential by a factor of about a bajillion.

Sure, its fun to argue, but winning rules. Heres how to do it.
LETS FACE IT:
3
Bar-room arguments are more a way
to pass the time than a way to change
anyones mind. Even the most impres-
sive of casual debaters is more likely to
develop a rep as a person who is good
at arguing than to actually prompt
people to change their views. Theyre
like trial lawyers who get robbers off
the hook everyones impressed (in
a weird way), but no one really thinks
theyre right.
Why is this? Why cant we just argue
people into agreeing?
Think about the last time you changed
your mind about something. Were
you bullied into it by fancy pants argu-
ments? Doubtful no ones ever really
MIND-ALTERING 1-ON-1
intimidated someone into chang-
ing their minds. Instead, you prob-
ably changed your mind as the result
of a calm, reasonable discussion with
someone you already respect, who said
something you werent expecting; that
wasnt so bad, was it?
Heres the trick: people dont really
change their minds based on the
sheer force of logic. Do you think
goths spend hours trying to nd the
right match of clown-look and crow-
look because their makeup provides
excellent solar UV protection? No.
People make decisions based on how
they want to see themselves; they think
something makes them look cool, so
they do it.
4
Effective debating isnt about throwing
arguments at a wall to see if they stick.
Its about methodically leading people
to change their minds in a way that is
consistent with how they see themselves.
Can you make your point of view con-
sistent with a positive self-image for the
person youre trying to persuade? If the
answer is yes, then youve got a shot.
The mind does not like to hold contra-
dictory views. If something doesnt com-
pute, well make sense of it by nding
a middle ground. That middle ground
depends on how strongly we believe
either side. Heres how it breaks down
in real life:
Lets say I like my best friend very much,
and then I discover that he owns the
entire discography of a terrible band
on CD and vinyl. If my respect for my
friend was originally stronger than
my hatred for a band whose drummer
sounds like a bad ringtone, Ill probably
come out of the experience liking the
band a good deal more and liking my
friend just a little bit less.
How can you use this to your advantage?
First off, its easier to persuade people
who already like you. Just understand
that youll be spending a bit of the credit
youve built up with them.
Start from a position of common under-
standing. If trying to convince your
independent, cinema-loving friends that
a certain series is a great achievement in
lmmaking, start by subtly reminding
them that you are a lifetime Film Forum
member, and leading them to agree that
the main man destroyed as the fun-lov-
ing, yet disciplined sergeant.
5
PERSUADING AN OPPONENT VS.
PERSUADING ONLOOKERS
and more determined in his original
convictions, even if hes no longer
quite sure why.
A more effective technique in this
case is to stop thinking of this person
as your opponent at all. Instead, he
is your friend, a person with whom
you have much common ground. Buy
the man a drink. Begin with beliefs
you hold in common. You need not
set out your case ahead of time;
instead, lead him there step by step,
making him think he has reached
each conclusion himself. Personal
compliments and/or pats on the back
may be helpful.
Establishing Common Ground
Formal debate is concerned with
persuading an audience. When theres
an audience, you can feel free to make
your opponent look stupid, provided
you can do it without making yourself
look like a jerk.
If there are no onlookers, then your
opponent is your audience. This is
much trickier. In this case, you cant
win by trouncing your opponent; no
one has ever changed their mind as a
result of having been made to feel stu-
pid. This kind of win will just make
your opponent frustrated, mad at you
6
ARGUMENT EXECUTION
not surgeons are simultaneously the
most effective and dangerous people
on the planet.
Congratulations, you have now gotten
exactly nowhere.
The key to keeping an argument on
track is organization. Imagine your
argument not as a single statement, but
as a sleek, concise outline: one main
idea, and a few reasons why.
Are any of those reasons conspicuously
weak? Kill them off. Better to have two
good reasons than two good reasons
and a feeble argument thats only going
to get smashed in front of you. Better to
send in two samurai than two samurai
and a pet rock.
Ok, so youve learned to leverage
good vibes into victory. But its not
always that easy
You may have noticed that most casual
arguments get off track pretty quickly.
Youre arguing that a certain band was
a billion times better with the original
singer. Your buddy thinks that the new
lead singer is a rock demi-god and
the sheer socks-blowing-offness of the
bands new album speaks for itself.
Youve got three reasons for your posi-
tion. Your buddy jumps on the weakest
of the three. You defend the weakest
of your points, forgetting the stronger
two. It all ends in an argument over
which singer could take the other in
a game of table tennis and whether or
7
PLAYING BY YOUR OWN RULES
Throughout the argument, always go
back to the structure of your argu-
ment dont let your opponent dig
in to just one point and lose the big
picture. Make him address your argu-
ment in its totality. This is why you
have more than one justification for
your main idea; your reasons why
are like showing up to the parking lot
with a posse, you want to make sure
wherever your opponent goes, they
got your back.
Its also good to begin your point
by dening crucial terms. Most people
view dening terms as a formality,
something to get out of the way before
getting on to the real argument. This
is to your advantage. Once your oppo-
nent has agreed to your denition, hell
probably forget he did it. That means
extra zinging when you bring it back up
later. Youre contradicting yourself is
always stronger than youre wrong
because I say so.
8
THE A TO Zs
AD HOMINEM ATTACK: Latin for to
the man (rather than to the argu-
ment). Refer to this any time your
opponent attacks your credibility, mor-
als, or brand of sneakers.
BANDWAGON FALLACY: The claim
that an argument must be correct
because of its popularity. Try pointing
out that majorities have believed in slav-
ery, alchemy, and the doctrine that mag-
gots arise spontaneously from meat.
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL
CAUSATION: This is a clear sign that
your opponents logic is starting to fall
apart. Now is the time for your verbal
lunge. Take the argument that the rea-
son we eat turkey during Thanksgiving
is because the bird happens to be the
least intelligent of all domesticated farm
animals. While potentially arguable, it is
still clearly ridiculous. Just because two
phenomena happen at the same time
doesnt mean one causes the other.
9
DIVISION: Assuming that because
something is true of a whole, it is also
true of its parts. Just because a certain
band was one of the greatest epic hard-
rocking bands of all time, doesnt mean
that their lead singer didnt come off a
tad pansyish.
EXCLUDED MIDDLE: Considering
only the extremes (also called a false
dichotomy); for example: Intelligent
aliens must be visiting the earth, because
its ridiculous to think were alone in the
universe. This ignores the possibility of
unintelligent life on other planets (why
not a planet populated by owers?),
intelligent life that hasnt yet developed
technology, or aliens who think were a
bunch of losers.
FALSE DILEMMA: Incorrectly assum-
ing that only two options exist. Either
we spend Christmas at my mothers, or
we sit at home watching TV. Holiday
programming blows, so were going to
my mothers.
GAMBLERS FALLACY: Delusional
betting such as, I am going to win
this pool game. I usually have a one
in three win rate, and I lost to the last
two players.
10
GAMBLERS FALLACY
HASTY GENERALIZATION: Forming a
conclusion based on too small a sample
size. Of course men love women in
overalls. My last two boyfriends thought
the house-painter look was hot.
INSULT TO INJURY: Beating someone
in a debate, and then talking trash
about his intelligence, mother, or body
composition. Have some class; stick to
the arguments.
JUXTAPOSITION: The error of think-
ing that two things are related in
some way just because theyre next to
each other. It would be a bummer to
appear in the newspaper for some great
accomplishment on the same page as
a retrospective about the worst criminals
throughout history. Juxtaposition in an
argument can sound like, I saw you
with Joe, and hes an artist, so you must
be one too
KETTLE BLACK, POT CALLING THE:
A phrase employed to expose hypocrisy.
This usually involves calling someone
out on an accusation theyve made, when
they happen to be guilty of the accusa-
tions subject themselves. The anthropo-
morphisation of household implements
engenders it with a sense of whimsy.
11
JUXTAPOSITION
LOADED WORDS: Using language that
is biased towards one side. A vegetar-
ian and a carnivore might agree to just
argue about meat rather than continu-
ally referring to the esh of innocent
creatures and tasty barbecue.
MIDDLE GROUND: The fallacy gravi-
tating towards the middle in an argu-
ment just because its the middle.
Respond with something like: Look, if
the album sucks, saying tracks 1-6 are ok
isnt going to rescue it.
NATURE, APPEAL TO: An appeal to
nature is an argument that whatever
is natural is good. Its natural for men
to dominate women. Of course, farm-
ing, medical care, and reading could
be considered unnatural, and your
entire family having the plague is
really quite natural.
ONE-SIDEDNESS: Presenting evidence
for only one side when other evidence is
available. If youre arguing in favor of a
romantic getaway in Ethiopia, mention-
ing the food but not the warlords might
be considered just a bit misleading.
POISONING THE WELL: Trying to dis-
credit a person before he even makes his
argument: Everything he says is a lie, but
go ahead and listen to what he has to say.
QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: If you want to
speak some fancy Latin, try post hoc ergo
propter hoc (after this, therefore because
of this), and youve almost won the
argument for sheer effort. Question-
able cause is when a person assumes
that one thing caused another simply
because it happened rst. For instance,
I switched to decaffeinated just before
he/she broke up with me, so that must
be the reason Im brokenhearted.
RED HERRI NG: Re me mbe r i n
that one movie when they kept saying
Communism is just a red herring? Me
neither. It refers to the introduction of
irrelevant information as a means of
diverting attention. Use it to buy your-
self time (but tenaciously call out oth-
ers who do so).
STRAW MAN: Attacking an incorrect,
often crudely simplied, version of
ones opponent. Saying, Youre just
arguing with a straw man can imply
that your position seems much more
sophisticated than it really is.
TAUTOLOGY: A proposition that
depends on its own conclusions. That
used car salesman is completely honest.
Just ask him and hell tell you how hon-
est he is.
UNDERWEAR, IMAGINING AUDI-
ENCE IN: A common technique for ner-
vous public speakers. Overusing it can
lead to overcondence and dizziness.
VANITY: A good way to gain ground in
an argument is to appeal to the vanity of
others. Youre smart enough to make
that connection without me having to
explain it. Or, You have experience
in retail, so Im sure you understand
my point about this department stores
stock price.
12
WEAK ANALOGY: The government
should ban unlicensed archers from
shooting with bows and arrows. After
all, private citizens arent allowed to
own nuclear weapons. Of course, all
analogies are weak in the sense that they
arent really about the thing theyre
referring to theyre about something
else thats supposedly parallel to it. Anal-
ogies can almost always be attacked in
that they arent, well ... analogous.
XANTIPPE: The wife of the great phi-
losopher Socrates, she argued with him
all the time. After one heated debate,
she emptied a chamber pot on his head,
prompting him to remark, After thun-
der comes the rain.

YOUR AUDIENCE: Never forget for
whom you are arguing. Pointing out
a guys tautologies can make him look
stupid and you look smart unless
youre doing it at his birthday party,
in front of his friends, in which case
you look like the guy who just killed
the festivities.
ZENO OF ELEA: Anci ent Greek
debater who used his powers of logic
to prove that motion doesnt exist
and that objects cant exist separately
from one another. Remember, with
your newfound powers of debate
comes a great responsibility not to say
something that makes you sound com-
pletely insane.
13
VANITY
COUNTERING AN
INTIMIDATING OPPONENT
ADVANCED TECHNIQUES:
14
making an argumentum ad cravat, but
now youve knocked him down to your
level regardless.)
Or this one: Your opponent is a nuclear
physicist, and you majored in theater
arts. Try this: Its a little intimidating to
be arguing with a nuclear physicist (now
youre identifying with the audience, pro-
vided that they are not also nuclear physi-
cists), but lets see if we can take this mas-
sive quantity of scientic information
and make some sense of it. (Now youre
the reasonable one, and your opponent is
some kind of extremist. Congratulations,
youre on your way to winning!)
You are arguing against an opponent
who is more articulate, taller, and fan-
tastically better-looking than you are.
Plus the fact they went to some fancy Ivy
League sissy school? No problem.
Try this: Mr. Prescott Wells III here
may have gone to Harvard (if holding
a beverage, raise pinky), but does that
really give him expertise into matters
of policy/N Wave/the human heart?
(That should cover most everything).
That necktie probably cost more than
my rent (we all love an underdog), but
Im still going to have to take issue with
his premises. (Prescott probably wasnt
Your only real hope when putting
forth a sickly argument or getting
completely dominated is to turn your
opponents weakness against them.
A better-spoken, better-looking, more
qualified opponent may impress
onlookers but those onlookers iden-
tify with you. Your greasy hair, bad
posture and vague smell of dissolution
can be powerful assets, if you play
them right.
The principle is: that which is named loses
its power. The best way to defuse your
opponents intimidating qualities it to
call them out: nothing makes an expen-
sive suit look so foolish as pointing out
that someone is wearing an expensive
suit in the middle of a dive bar.
Examples...
15
TIPS AND TRICKS
BACKED-UP-AGAINST-
THE-WALLISMS
16
2. It looks like youre really reaching for justication on that point.
What can your opponent say? Um ... no, Im not.
3. Does it make you feel good about yourself to think that?
1. Demand that your opponent provide proof of anything that
could be construed as a fact.
17
5. Referring to dictators is trite. And if you do feel compelled
to refer to your opponent as a sheer force of evil,
try something more exotic, like Pol Pot.
4. Well, you can use statistics to prove anything.
18
7. I would have agreed with that as a teenager. It sounds like youre
conceding something, but really, youre implying that
your opponents arguments are juvenile. Cute.
8. Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom. Never fails.
6. Are you sure your conclusion follows logically from your premise?
19
doing the thinking for them, in a way
they will latch onto because it makes
them seem smart, and right.
Begin with something like Well,
thats certainly been a lot of infor-
mation! So, if I had to tie this all
together, I think the most important
thing is clearly....
Any listeners who are lost or afraid of
being put on the spot for an opinion
are now eating out of your hand. You
are going to make it easy for them.
First, Clean it Up
By the end of an argument, there
are usually lots of little points on the
table that no one who isnt taking notes
is going to be able to make much sense
of. Your audiences minds are occupied
by the last clever one-liner they heard.
You are trying to persuade. You dont
want to leave your audience mucking
about in their heads, trying to draw
their own conclusions. You want to
capitalize on their natural laziness by
BRINGING IT HOME: PART 1
20
Remind the audience of the most pow-
erful points from your own argument.
Show that they best meet the standard.
Give a little room to your opponent:
While it originally seemed that the
facts pointed to no, I think its become
clear over the last twenty minutes that
initial appearances can be deceiving,
and weve come to a yes.
To take a point from pinstriped Oxford-
type debaters. If your opponent drops
any of your points, you win those points
by default. In a casual argument, make
sure you emphasize the importance
of any points your opponent failed to
address. This is basically the debating
equivalent of a top-rope ying suplex.
False Sense of Security
Explain what the big picture is,
leaving some room for either arguer
to win. The main question is whether
there are Weapons of Mass Destruc-
tion in Providence, Rhode Island.
See how it still sounds like a question,
like youre the moderate, weighing
both sides?
Explain how the question should be
decided. It really comes down to the
evidence, and the sources for that evi-
dence. Now youve created what looks
like an objective standard, which leads,
of course, to your side winning in a sup-
posedly objective face-off.
BRINGING IT HOME: PART 2
21
of course, didnt his position turn out to
be an embarrassment? Surely, we would
not want to be embarrassed by making
the logical mistakes he has.
You, and your crowd of onlookers, have
come so much further than that, and
you have done so together.
Being a great debater isnt about making
others think you are a great debater. Its
about methodically guiding the minds
of others, making them come freely
to your way of thinking. Soon enough,
youll have people buying you drinks
and hoisting you on their shoulders like
a true champion.
Tactical Sympathy
To really convince onlookers, say
something like, Remember, the real
brunt of my case was the assertion
that we should help endangered seals
because the Inuit depend on them, and
while Joe here has had plenty to say
about pandas and bald eagles, he hasnt
had any response to this very fundamen-
tal point. (Of course, now is the time to
exaggerate the importance of whatever
points it is that Joe happened to drop.)
Paint your opponent as a nice guy who,
sadly, has failed in his search for the
truth. You have sympathy for him! But,
BRINGING IT HOME: PART 3
22
PROVE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOT YOUR CAPACITY.
2007 DEWARS, WHITE LABEL, THE HIGHLANDER DEVICE ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS AND DEWARISM IS A TRADEMARK.
IMPORTED BY JOHN DEWAR & SONS COMPANY, MIAMI, FL. BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY - 40% ALC. BY VOL.