When listening to debate, if you have no knowledge of the subject, how do you judge what is said?

Question

Do you evaluate the character of the speakers? If they stammer a lot, does it give you a negative view of them? If they are sarcastic and rude to the other side, do you find yourself less likely to be convinced by them?
IOW - Without doing your own research, what makes you believe what you believe on debatable subjects?

Answer 1

I have tried to learn the difference between rhetoric and reason.

Rhetoric is all about appeal. Saying things in such a way that they SEEM correct and desirable. It has nothing to do with what is ACTUALLY correct and desirable. A reasonable argument needs only to be understood. Its only appeal is in how it works.

Because I would rather see the truth than just what looks nice, I try very hard to grab the reason from inside every argument that is made. I won't pretend that I'm completely successful, but I try to ignore HOW something is presented and instead understand WHAT is being presented.

If I should actually catch someone actively using rhetoric in a debate, I always ask myself why he isn't being reasonable instead. Is his position so weak that he must resort to lies and illusions to support it? To me, then, this tends to have the opposite effect - I look at what he says with MORE suspicion rather than less.

And afterward, of course, I try to verify what I have heard by consulting other sources. But that wasn't the purview of your question.

Peace.

Answer 2

Debate is controversial, and when discussing controversy
simplicity and detail are priorities. The only thing a judge
needs to know is what defines simplicity and what defines
detail. The particular subject of the debate is trivial compared
to the importance of simplicity and detail. In the ideal debate
any person from any walk of life should be able to walk
in at the beginning of the debate and have the capacity
to understand what is being discussed. In my opinion, if the
speakers in the debate do not design their discussion with
simplicity then it can assumed that they are not interested
in reaching conclusions regarding the controversy; the
controversy is their agenda, not the solution to
the controversy. Why is something controversial? Because
it is confusing. Why is it then that speakers in the debate
use highly niche oriented vocabulary to discuss the
controversy. In my opinion, it is one of two choices.
Either the speaker doesn't have enough of an in depth
understanding to explain in laymen's terms or the speaker
doesn't know that they should be explaining in laymen's
terms. Consider the speaker who stands up at the
beginning of the debate and announces to the audience
that they must first purchase the speaker's book in order
to understand the topics which will be discussed. Does
the speaker consider that his/her book is smarter than
himself/herself. In the worst case, the speaker should have
his/her book on hand and be willing to read a few passages
which are the subject which the speaker questions.
In regards to mannerisms during speaking, it is unreliable
to come to a definitive conclusion on causality of the
manners. For example, using your character examples
consider the stammer. The stammer could mean many
things. Perhaps the stammer means the speaker hasn't
done his/her research. Perhaps the stammer means the
speaker is so devoted to his/her research that nerves
impede projection. To think it is one and have it be the
other is to draw an extreme misconception.
The effective speaker can bridge the learning curve
imposed by debate content.
The effective listener knows how to recognize the effective
speaker regardless of subject matter.

Answer 3

Hmmm..I definately first learn what the topic or subject is even if I don't about it. I listen closely to each side. I use common sense to figure out who is more convincing. I pay attention to more of how the two debaters are interacting with each other as apposed to listening verbatum on the subject. Who seems more knowledgable, more experience, whether they are coming from an emotional point or factual point, if they seem to be just attacking the other opponent or really listening to what they are saying. Those who use selective listening or defensive listening usually aren't listening at all and really came to prove their point rather than being open to change. Then after the debate, I personally will go and research the topic according to little questions that popped in my mind about the subject. Sometimes it can take some time to come up with a conclusion.

Answer 4

Do you evaluate the character of the speakers?
Only if he is claiming to be an eye witness to an event that he is talking about. If he is a bad person there is a good reason to not believe his testimony. But in other cases the character of the person does not make his arguments wrong. Sometimes it is useful to evaluate the speaker's background in the subject he is talking about.


If they stammer a lot, does it give you a negative view of them?
Only if they are stammering in order to fool me. There is a propaganda technique called "plain folk". Politicians often use this technique in order to not appear elite. By doing this they are implicitly saying "Hey, I am one of you".

When listening to debate, if you have no knowledge of the subject, how do you judge what is said?
You can start by studing informal logic. Informal logic descreminates valid (good) from invalid (bad) arguments. Check out this website for examples of fallacies: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ I heard that logicians had identified about 200 of those kinds of fallacies. Then you can can study formal logic, which I find more difficult.

seek the truth and it shall make you free

email me if you have any questions about what I said:
[e-mail]

Answer 5

A debate is about how well each speaker agrues their side of the argument. You shouldn't have to know anything about the topic. Just listen to the each person. They should present an argument and then they should present material to back-up the argument they presented. Composure while debating will help, but content is most important.

Answer 6

Very good question, kudos!

For me, it would be the presence of the speaker, is he/she confident in their speaking manner, 2nd respectful to the other side, 3rd able to argue all things with logical points and not skirt around subjects and pass off the same answer reworded to every topic, and lastly (and for me MOST importantly) cites sources within the speech that can be verified by the listener, also is open to questions by the listen as well

Answer 7

I judge what is said based on the information and facts that I am aware of. It is natural for an individual to judge the validity of the speaker's comments based on the way the speaker presents themself to the public. I am apt to believe information if I can find (or know of) factual evidence to support that information or an individual's argument.

Answer 8

If you have no knowledge of the subject, you should recuse yourself.

Answer 9

ask other listener on what is happening...