After watching the final Presidential debate, I have learned a few more things about debating behavior. If you haven't already, check out what I said about it in my first blog post here. One thing that was abundantly clear is that Hillary would panic when damning evidence against her was brought up, such as the emails released by WikiLeaks. When someone is in a debate that they don't have enough points, statistics, or facts to win, they resort to a few different tactics, most of which are induced by a panic of "not losing". The reason why this is important to know is because, once you think about it, each tactic is pathetic and, in no way, contributes to their chances of winning an argument. Most tactics are a form of denial and the losing side refusing to accept the true claims of their opponent. Pay close attention because you've probably been in similar debating situations:
1. Changes the subject
Hillary didn't want people to know about what was released so she kept trying to change the subject, typically to something she had recited prior to the debate so that she could sound more professional and to take your mind off of her losing points. This is a cowardly act because it shows the debater is scared, or unable to protect themselves.
2. Brings up irrelevant information
After Trump started talking about some of the crimes committed by her through the Clinton Foundation, she started bringing up the fact that Trump hasn't released his tax returns yet, and made a vague comparison to herself as though what Trump did was worse. This is also another way of changing the subject but is, overall, another form of denial.
3. Refuses to accept claims of similarity
If you are the opponent of someone in an argument, this is probably the most upsetting and perturbing thing to hear. They will make a claim (let's assume a true claim) about you, yet they refuse to accept the fact that they are also guilty of the same claim. Of course this is also known as hypocrisy, which, in some way, we are all guilty of, but there is no room for this in a debate of any kind. The reason one does something like this so often in a debate is due to what I said earlier, being that they don't have sufficient data to win. If they find anything to oppose you, they disregard themselves in any claim which ironically just makes them look like an even bigger fool. Denial.
4. Plays the blame game
"He did it!" "But she started it!" A typical child's argument that is still common amongst debating individuals today. No one wants to be the cause of something catastrophic, whether it be a physical event, or a topic of discussion. The blame game is just another way of diverting attention away from one's imperfections and failures to try and make it look like, even if you are guilty of the claim, that you weren't the first to be guilty of it. In the perspective of law, it doesn't matter who committed a crime first, if you're guilty, you're guilty. Finding blame is a losing battle that just takes time, and because it is just another form of denial, it may never end.
5. Plays the victim card
This one typically is a combination of the blame game, changing the subject, and bringing up irrelevant information. The debater doesn't want to continue to try and fight a losing battle so they make accusations to look as though they are being treated unfairly. This one is the most prevalent in society and is used to suppress someone's valid argument. It becomes a battle to see who can take the most offense to non-offensive claims and statements and ultimately leaves the "victim" having unsettled and unkind feelings toward their opponent, even if the opponent did nothing at all. Many false assumptions and implications are made by these card players, typically in the form of either taking a quote out of context, or rephrasing a quote with the inclusion of a non-existent implicit claim by their opponent. This sadly works at suppressing people's public opinions, yet is detrimental to the person's ability and validity in terms of debatability and discussion.
Think about these claims and make sure to avoid them in your own discussions. If you're opponent is humble and honest enough, feel free to point it out to them if they are guilty of any of these claims so that you may continue to have a fair, honest, and contentionless discussion. Don't be a hypocrite and don't be in denial, for your sake and the sake of those you speak with.
No comments:
Post a Comment