Debate + Argument Formulation Tips

debating is like intellectually fighting, make sure to win

• Keep asking why - ask the why behind the answer to another why question
• Use curiosity to your advantage
• Question intuition of asking questions because not all questions are the same (resulting in a false equivalency fallacy)
• For example, a cop can ask you to search your can and if you say no and they ask why not it's like like you have anything to hide, you can say, according to human motivation factors, there is no reason to show you and put effort into it - you can ask where this intuition comes from and what goal answering this question will accomplish.
• This is where the usefulness of measuring effort comes into play. If there is a lack of a reason to do so as such, humans will not do it. Similarly: why would we get up and change the tv with our bare hands pressing the button on the tv when we have a remote? Is there a specific reason to use the button as opposed to the remote?
• This is because not all curiosity is the same or equal, those who ask why not or Christians who claim moral curiosity fail to recognize the false equivalence it has to scientific explanations.
• Religion serves as temporary explanations (theories) until better explanations can come across
• Keep in mind of the nature of human behavior when answering these questions - being in a certain mood can hinder results (this is why scientists are unbiased and one with nature when studying)
• Another good example is a Christian asking why can't you be moral attempting to stop scientific curiosity, we should ask where this intuition comes from, we can explain our side given the nature of human behavior is to be curious as that is what humans have been practically doing for hundreds of years and has worked.
• Everything you do is the nature of human behavior, therefore everything is justified.
• Asking why not is a good indicator the person does not understand the basics of human motivation covered by a psychology class, not a biblical class you free will believers
• Human beings have an curiosity intuition that of which questions are formulated and pursued.
• Ask opponent to clearly state the criteria for classification
• What criteria is being applied to classify it as such?
• Ask opponent to define their terms before engaging in conversation
• For example, if opponent uses the word "torture" with a different definition than you - that effectively means you two are debating a completely different premise, that can render problems. not to mention, torture is an ideal classification not a physical classification.
• Not to mention, something can be justified torture, whereas someone can think torture is never justified.
• Most people cannot even settle on the same definition of a word, therefore, not being able to move on from the debate - maybe the premise of the debate should be to set definitions on words themselves.
• Things like human beings require recognition compared to a set of pre-defined standards, even as human beings, we wouldn't recognize fellow human beings without a thought process seeking to apply a set of criteria in the brain for respecting the presence of human beings.
• This is partially the reason why the world is overpopulating, too many quantities , far less quality.
• Retribution or rehabilitative justice?
• Objectively see it as a thought process rather than a feeling or criteria classification, words can be confuzing when identified as it takes a certain prerequisite mood to identify an opinion as such
• The most clear way to say this is what is your opinion on breakfast food during the AM vs the PM, people will realize that opinions are moods that change.
• Literally ask them to map out their thoughts
• Literally ask them to map out their thought process
• Ask person: how did you derive this goal?
• Think of it in terms of thinking process and behavior of learning how to learn
• isolate the thought process from the person , think of it as thinking behavior aka. thought process patterns 
• Morality describes behavior and is a set of goals based on trust.
• What makes grass innocence more valuable than human innocence?
• I can tell you why - it's based on practical value as opposed to moral dogma- you have to ask yourself, what makes morality possible, it's practicalism.
• See opponents actions as human behavior to be studied instead of ideas.
• There is practical reason behind everything
• All ideas derive from the symbolism created as human beings existing in the physical realm
• Ask them to describe the criteria for classification
• Effectively meaning them same thing as asking for a definition.
• Think of mental actions similar to physical actions
• Hint: this is where the term mental gymnastics comes into play
• When the other side says you're just emotional, remind them of justified emotions and unjustified emotions
• Also, remember that being calm itself in and of itself is an emotion too.
• This is why violence is silence was created - to share the fact that we are so desensitized to violence.
• When discussing issues like the death penalty, ensure you convey the cause of events and how these events add up and how using death as a punishment isn't reasonable given the chance to rehabilitate as punishment does not focus on the practical effects of why something is wrong but rather just reinforces dogma.
• punishment vs rehabilitation
• Also explain how it does not make sense to isolate one event in a series of events, known as a chain reaction of cause and effect, something that is happening by the second.
• When a moralist uses the word "deserves," this is another one of those euphemisms for criteria being applied, ask them to clarify what criteria is being applied.
• When discussing social issues, ask to explain: what does it mean to deserve something?
• What does deserve even mean? And what does science have to say about it?
• Clearly list the considered factors
• evaluate as a goal how to set goals
• Assigning responsibility and self-control is done with a goal in mind
• Ask for evaluation then conclusion
• don't let loaded words representing a conclusion such as "wrong" or right fool you
• Literally ask them the question: how did you come to this conclusion?
• Remember: justifiable
• justified violence
• there are boundaries to be set
• Understand that adjectives are, too, measurements of variables
• For example, when describing something at black, you are mentally comparing it to a color scale (search up color scale with hex codes)
• Similarly, when you call something immoral, you are measuring a variable, which variable you might ask?
• Apply the same logic they used to a similar situation/condition/event
• For example, if they claim that they will prevent abortion because God told them so, I can ask them: If God told me to rape your wife and kill your children, would you be okay with that? Just like God stripped everything away from that one man in the bible.
• Just know that: if you can't use your words to convince me, then you are simply bad at explaining and don't understand yourself
• Criteria Measure Adjective
• For example, selfishness applies a set of measurement criteria to describe something, when in reality is describes the person's feelings towards a particular idea, as this criteria is set by someone's feelings.
• justified selfishness setting boundaries - everyone is technically selfish to a degree, it's just that we set different boundaries on what is acceptable and not.
• instead of sharing conclusion using adjectives like stupid or horrible, share the reasoning used because that makes it clear how you reached the conclusion, without it, you are merely just expressing your feelings via verbatim
• consideration criteria apply
• What you consider is the criteria you apply to decide and conclude something for a goal of survival
• When describing using adjectives, we are attempting to measure our feelings via verbatim
• The reason why this is a double edged sword is that there are not enough vocabulary words to describe how we are feeling, yet. We are technically, literate in our level of understanding of human nature.
• Based on the way human being works - how we set and pursue goals
• no reason to is a reason not to
• There is always a reason, even if an indescribable feeling is a reason
• Perspective = goal = symbolism
• a smart person won't reach that conclusion
• Experiences make people think certain thoughts. That being said, if you thought about the goals you set on a daily basis, to include moral ones that are seen as objectively true, especially by poor people who relay on dogma to prove their worth.
• Perspective is basically how someone mentally uses a piece of information symbolizing it for aa goal of identifying it a particular way by applying a set of criteria
• Applying this set of criteria and concluding is what makes it an opinion
• Observing it is the only way one can be objective - seeing it as a fact.
• Not all opinions are the same and therefore not all of them should be treated with the same level of respect.  For example a pedophile supporter or an actual pedophile would get restrained and dismemberment on the sport whereas a thief might get a lesson on social constructivism.
• Opinions are justifications - debate is arguing for a justification for a cause, a reason to pursue, or a goal.
  
• It is a fact weather or not it fits said criteria
• The definition of the criteria, however, is based on - not a matter of personal opinion - what factors are used to conclude identification of a fact
• an opinion  is a method of identifying a factual piece of information
• I say this because facts exist like an environment exists or a theoritical set of notion of criteria exists. For the environment, it is all interconnected with one another maintaining homoeostasis, that wat, if you say a baby, you are indirectly emphasizing characteristics of the age of a particular organism, if you say green organism - self-explanatory definition - you are emphasize the characterizes of color.
• Ask them "how did you come to that conclusion?"
• This will tell you the factors considered and concluded upon, you must be aware of mental variable such as definition, self-explanatory, limits, consideration of factors, criteria, etc.
• intentions should match actions
• If not that is just as bad as having good intentions of teaching someone not to steal but going about in two different ways
• One can teach one not to steal via chopping off their hand after committing an offense hoping the opposite party with the chopped off hand see that pain as symbolism for a punishment for stealing
• One can teach one not to steal via avoiding trigger situations that would cause one to steal or to lead their desires elsewhere instead of stealing to admire from a distance or to pursue and develop other goals.
• If you can't explain it, you (probably) shouldn't be teaching it
• and, no, hitting someone is objectively not explaining anything, it only causes a fear response in the brain, unless that's what you want people to learn, don't teach it, it's that simple.
• To understand a debate or any concept, you must first understand the words used
• Understanding words will give you a much clearer ideas since we think and express feelings in terms of words.
• Loaded words like violence and other adjectives like self-absorbed are useless as they only describe your feelings on the matter and without explanation of these feelings in practical unbiased non emotionally loaded words, there is no point in debating
• Why should this word even exist?
• Stop arguing about how abstract ideas should be mentally categorized
• Don't let the usage of adjectives confuse you, it's either justified not, don't be worried about people putting their feelings into words with words like stupid or baby-face
• Think of a debate as debating an attitude as opposed to a set of ideas to be categorized as justified or not justified, and what attitude does one have to be in order to mentally categorize ideas as such?
• For example, when not threatened, one does not categorize killing another person as justified, however, when threatened by this person, that justification changes due to the security being jeopardized.
• When using an adjective ask yourself: it's "stupid" compared to what standard? Don't be easily manipulated
• Be proactive in knowing that an insult like stupid is like calling something small dick, without a measurement it's inaccurate to identify
•  This clarifies that we need criteria to apply 
• Saying that you're [unjustifiably] "censoring" different opinions that type of excuse and logic encompasses a lot of opinions including ped0-supporting opinions - point is, not all opinions are equal.
• and count like sent we icing lor saying criminal saying it jail because I have different opinion
• Responsibility assigned to the who can change. You can't blame the air even if that was the cause however you can change the way you react to the air
• Moreover, it completely valid to blame something in the path that is in your way, like a wet floor without a wet floor sign that signals the human brain to move out of the way.
• After blaming it on something, it is that very thing that needs to change. It does not make sense to blame something and not change it, it's like slipping on water and continuously slipping on that water.
• Justified classism don't create new words to try to unjustified something that's ridiculous
• War is always violence some just think it's justified and others unjustified\
• "Focus on ideas not people"
• While criticizing, focus on specific ideas, not people.
  An Ad Hominem argument is not going to help improve the ideas someone holds in their mind. It will usually arouse indignation from the person being criticized.
  Labelling people also inclines you to dismiss their ideas. Which hampers the growth of knowledge.
• Source: https://www.arjunkhemani.com/p/focus-on-ideas-not-people
• Flawed arguments should make you feel bored (You should program your ow feelings here, by making sense of feelings, you can control your behavior and change your mind)
• What is the formula for identifying as "flawed?"
• Debate human behavior not the ideas: We are only here for the food
• There are boundaries to everything (including free speech) as to what is acceptable and non acceptable (tolerating intolerance isn't tolerable)
• When I say free speech boundaries, the most clear and extreme example I can use is there is a reason why we look down on those support Nazi symbolism in everyday life as well as loli content.
• Make sure that the logic used isn't the same logic can used to be justify pedopeheloia
• why experience is why everything as experience is the only thing, why feelings why curious
• The why is the conclusion or the process of "how"
• see it as an evaluation not as a conclusion
• when someone says "you are immoral and unjustified" attack the process (criteria applied) used to conclude the conclusion rather than the actual conclusion itself
• before you finalize on justifying something, make sure a rapist or a torturer can't use the same justification
• Before you use the logic, make sure the same logic can't be used to justify things like torture.
• For example, when advising a torture victim on resiliency you wouldn't say: don't change the goal change the plan as we have - physical and mental - limits as to how far we are willing and able to pursue the goal. We have physical and mental limits. What are the limits of this justification?
• Another example, when telling a person "at least it couldn't be worse" is like telling a person who just got their hand chopped off by the cartel "at least both of your hands didn't get chopped off"
• Make sure to clarify which exceptions are made to the logic
• For example, pro-life folks stop their notion at appreciating life when it comes to other animals like dogs and birds arguing that human babuies are more "valuable"
• Sometimes, you have to get comfortable being uncomfortable?
• Sure, but what are the limits? Obviously, you wouldn't tell a raped child to get comfortable with a rapist raping the child themselves, as that is justifiably traumatic.
• Explain why it works- in terms of human desire, not just an idea.
  
• Avoid involtunarily and implusively categorizing it
• Think in terms of the range of possibities each vague word considered, for example, spanking covers any form of slapping the bum
• Think in terms of possibilties in general, not just one conclusion
• Learn to observe the effects instead of predict your own thoughts, let things play out and then explain it.
• saying im not murderer is like saying the sky is blue, point is it's a conclkusion not reasoning that can justify the specific possibilties of 
• Not everything has to have a reason
• There is still reason as to why you think something doesn't need a reason as a justification.
• This same logic clearly can't be applied to things like rape and murder and what not, so why should it be applied to smaller scale things? The same logic should apply there shouldn't it?
• There is no such thing as intrinsitc justification, that means there is no justification
• "language is the key to understanding [everything]"
• to study arguments for and against, study the language used instead of focusing on the feeling it creates when being faced with abhorrent opinions (ex. women as childbearers only)
• Ask yourself: What varaibles are you trying to convince/change? What varaibles are you trying to change?
• Their attitude? their thought process? Their conclusion?
• Range of categorization as justification
• Think of all arguments in terms of explaining human behavior
• Spanking is a good one to start with.
• Ask the question: how does this change your goal?

Keywords:

mental tips, learning to feel your feelings, therapy is real, you can't fool me,