What are the qualities of a good debater?Explain with the help of suitable examples.?

Question

Pls send me the answer of 'the qualities of a good debater'. It should be explained with suitable examples. The answer should be in about 500 words. I would really be grateful to receive your answers.

Answer 1

it's a valid strategy to ask for ideas, but not to ask other people to do your entire assignment for you. in any case, the most important quality for a debater, to my mind, is flexibility, being able to think on your feet, since your comments must reflect and answer the comments that you have just heard from your adversary.

Answer 2

A good debater should have the following qualities:
1. Being a tolerant person, one that can be open minded and ready to explore new ideas. Otherwise he will never understand the opinions and ideas of the other side of the debate. It does not mean that he immediately should change his mind and opinion.
2. Ready to listen other opinions and staying calm until the other debater finishes his presentation; he may write comments during this time.
3. When presenting his opinion, the debater should present the case by speaking clearly, slowly, not loudly and without explaining again and again the same argument.
4. When arguing, he should never attack the DEBATER himself but only his idea.
5. A good debater should make in confrontation his ideas with other ideas, and he should never see the debate as a way of humiliating others and increasing his ego-trip.
6. A good debater should really know all details of his ideas, and if during the debate, he is exposed to a question that he has not the answer, he should say simply: "I don't know" it's better than lying and inventing nonsense answer.
7 A good debater should argue logically and not sentimentally, and never accept a non-proved idea as true. On the other hand if during the debate he recognizes that he is convinced by the other debater, he should say it clearly and give compliment when the other debater deserves it.

Answer 3

A good debater is one who can put forth his point of view forcefully, clearly and with acceptable quotations, examples from real life.
For instance if you have to debate on Should there be fake encounters for eradication of terrorism, you have to be very forceful. Like:
If terrorists have the right to kill innocents why can't the security forces kill the terrorists ( even sometime in fake encounters) to finish the criminals? Are human rights only for the terrorists?
Anybody can understand the logic behind killing of terorists ( or militants, as they were called) in Punjab. The criminals were rounded up by police and as they tried to flee, they were shot down - though sometime as fake episodes, too. No wonder, the menace was eradicated from Punjab.
Contrarily, the menace continues in J&K for 2 reasons: they are constantly being sent from the neighbouring countries and those arrested are kept in jails for trial. They eat food, use all facilities at the expense of the tax payer who, regretfully is the victim, too. In the end courts set them free for one reason or the other. They come out as heroes.
Killing such murderers is the only answer.