I think you're right that most debates are targeted toward and audience or a judge, but when you *are* debating with the intent of convincing your interlocutor, what I've found most helpful is to put about twice as much work into mapping/understanding my opponent's beliefs as making my case.
Most of my questions in the first half or so are from a place of genuine curiosity, where I don't know what they will say, and I shift to more pointed/crowbar questions once I better understand *this* opponent.
I would go as far as saying you should understand your opponent's beliefs to an extent that you could as easily switch places with them and convincingly argue their side as your own.
These are excellent suggestions for people who are already going to engage in debate. What I wonder, though, is if it is somehow possible to mitigate the social harm caused by high school and undergraduate debate clubs. No matter where they go in life, their alumni struggle ever afterward with incorrigible obnoxiousness. This may be a survivorship bias problem, though, and perhaps cannot be fixed by improving debate.
I think you're right that most debates are targeted toward and audience or a judge, but when you *are* debating with the intent of convincing your interlocutor, what I've found most helpful is to put about twice as much work into mapping/understanding my opponent's beliefs as making my case.
Most of my questions in the first half or so are from a place of genuine curiosity, where I don't know what they will say, and I shift to more pointed/crowbar questions once I better understand *this* opponent.
I've written a little about running debates in this mode here at Plough: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/relationships/students-brave-the-heat
I would go as far as saying you should understand your opponent's beliefs to an extent that you could as easily switch places with them and convincingly argue their side as your own.
It's *great* to go into a debate already able to pass an ideological turing test, but often that requires ~2-3hrs of conversation prior to the event.
It's much easier to pass an ITT as a plausible affiliate of the side your opponent belongs to than to match *them in particular.*
I had fun running an ITT for atheists vs Christians a few times.
These are excellent suggestions for people who are already going to engage in debate. What I wonder, though, is if it is somehow possible to mitigate the social harm caused by high school and undergraduate debate clubs. No matter where they go in life, their alumni struggle ever afterward with incorrigible obnoxiousness. This may be a survivorship bias problem, though, and perhaps cannot be fixed by improving debate.
Your evasion of philosophy, principles and systematic thinking is noted.
You think a list of seven principles avoids principles?
I see no list of principles.