Debating 101: Taking the wind out of their sails

Regular readers of this blog appreciate the contempt I have for the activity known as debating. For the benefit of those not initiated in the savagery of the Silwane ways, here is a definition for you. Debate is a form of interaction between two human beings in which they engage for the purpose of proving that they are right and that the other party is an idiot. The criminally insane sometimes have debates between more than just two people. That’s just crazy.

I have argued many times before that I personally do not see the point of debating. My reason is simple; debates serve no real purpose except to shorten one’s lifespan by a few days — what with all that blood pressure elevation and major blood vessels bursting. That’s because debating rationally is impossible. Inevitably, emotions get in the way and people end up arguing for one reason only, to win. Of course, nobody ever really wins an argument. A win would involve the vanquished party uttering the words; “You’re right and I’m a retard. After your compelling, facts-based arguments, I can see that a 50 basis points increase in the prime lending rate does cause the inflation rate to rise by at least 20%, after all.” If you think that no one has ever made such a moronic argument, you clearly have never eavesdropped on conversations I have in my circle of friends.

Reading the above, you would be forgiven for assuming that I avoid debates like Eugene Terreblanche avoids the Soweto Highway off-ramp. But if I did successfully stay clear of debates, that would make me a rational human being. No such thing exists. It is for this reason that I found myself in the middle of a heated debate about agriculture and crop rotation last night. For the record; I know nothing about agriculture whatsoever. All I know about agriculture is that chunky, khaki-clad guys with sun-ripened cheeks and combs in their socks drive around in tractors tilling the soil and donnering uppity natives silly at the slightest provocation.

Common decency dictates that someone with my levels of ignorance on the subject matter would stay away from the debate and let the experts debate. But using the word “decency” in relation to me would be a bit like using the words “sex appeal” and “Zille” in the same sentence. For the record; the experts in this case were:

1. A guy with a bachelor of commerce degree whose expertise on agriculture is based on the fact some guy at his work knows a shit-load of farmers.
2. A chemical engineer who works for a soap manufacturing company whose qualification to speak authoritatively on crops is that he has potatoes in his cupboard.
3. Another chemical engineer whose extensive credentials on agriculture revolve around the fact that she’s a vegetarian and thus eats lots of greens, roots and grains.

I know. An impressive lineup indeed.

As you can probably figure out; my only qualification for debating about agriculture so passionately is because of my deep conviction that my friends are as ignorant as I am on agriculture. Yes, this reason really did seem rational to me at the time. In my defence, I was drinking some obscenely cheap wine.

So we stumbled along from one nonsensical argument to the next our voices raised, causing all the other decent folk in the establishment deep consternation. I know, great fun was had by all. About thirty-seven hours into the insult-swapping exercise I felt myself losing ground as the wine started wreaking havoc with the synaptic connections in my brain. Let’s assume that my argument was that farmers always practice crop rotation depending on which crop’s price was attractive.

Me: No commercial farmers would let their fields lie fallow because the price of barley is too low. They’d plant some other crop.

Expert with farmer friends: And yet you’d be surprised how often it happens. That’s a fact. They simply refuse to plant the barley, causing a shortage and then the laws of demand-and-supply kick in which raises the price again.

Me: A-ha! You just made my point for me! Supply and demand kicks in!

Everybody (with quizzical looks): Huh?

Okay, freeze the moment. An inexperienced debater will, in all likelihood, try to backpedal when caught in this situation. Bad move. The thing to do at this point is to understand the Universal Law of Debate: He who is less emotional than the other party during a debate always wins the debate. Please repeat, after me.

When caught out in an intellectually bankrupt moment such as this one, do not be flustered. Take a deep breath, deliberately pick up your glass of throat-corroding cheap wine and say something like;

“Is your mom related to your dad?”

“Excuse me?”

“Your eyes are a little too far apart. It’s one of the symptoms of inbreeding.”

No, that’s not the trick I pulled last night. The guy in question is only a few centimeters south of 2m. I’m a podgy midget who stands 1,7m in his platforms. ‘Nuff said.

But I think you get the drift. Mockery, sarcasm and insults are your only way out of such a tight spot. These excellent weapons will have the effect of totally throwing your opponent off and turn him into an angry, irrational idiot. You have no idea how easy it is to turn defeat into victory when your nemesis is angry and you’re laughing your ass off. And it doesn’t matter how stupid your argument is. In the eye of onlooker, the guy who’s winning is the one whose head is thrown back in laughter versus the emotional, angry dude. Even if the angry dude is stating a universal truth along the lines of, “The winner of a marathon is the guy who crosses the finish line first.” If you’re the guy who’s in mockery mode, you can laugh this one off by saying something sharp-sounding but totally useless such as, “Tee hee hee! Your ignorance cracks me up. Ever heard of Einstein’s Theory of relativity, idiot?”

If you’re in the middle of an argument against an experienced campaigner, sarcasm and mockery have been known to fail. This is when you’re supposed to whip out the big guns. I have a few of these in my stockpile of tricks but I’ll share only one gem:

When you feel you’re losing a debate, take the wind out of the other guy’s sails. This works best when used right after the other guy delivers his coup de grace.

This involves agreeing with your opponent’s arguments as if to say, “we all know that, so what’s your point?’. For effect, raise your eyebrows exaggeratedly and spread your arms wide. Example:

Excited opponent: But by reinserting the temperature probe into the equipment, the electrical circuit which had previously been disconnected is reconnected which makes your argument null and void. That is irrational.

You (remember the pose): Yes, I know my argument is irrational.

EO: Ah ha! So you do admit that your argument is irrational then?

You (calmly): Of course I do. I never said my argument was rational. That was your argument. So what’s your point?

I have never known anyone to have a convincing comeback to this trick. Most people will simply throw their hands in the air in exasperation. A few aggressive types will mostly likely call you by unsavoury names, to which you’ll respond, “Oh my, aren’t we touchy. I’m sorry you don’t have an argument here. No need to take it out on me.”

That’ll leave your opponent without any doubt that you’re either suffering from rabies or that you’re a completely ignorant moron, which you’ll readily admit to yourself. But look on the bright side; you won’t have lost the debate.

Class is out.

[email protected]