[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 86 KB, 672x372, debateiguess.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12019598 No.12019598 [Reply] [Original]

Hello everyone, recently I've had the urge to improve my skills at debating. I have for the longest time had a very hard time trying to prove my point to others without fumbling over my words or writing/saying something that is incomprehensible to anyone but myself and while I used to be content with that I've recently had the urge to try and improve my skills at debating. So, my question to you, what are some books that are worth reading to help improve these skills? Both new and old are fine, no self-help crap.

>> No.12019619

>>12019598
just start arguments on 4chan

>> No.12019626
File: 2.56 MB, 300x424, 1536684811112.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12019626

>>12019598
Cicero and Caesar

>> No.12019630

>>12019619
This, reading books wont help you until you engage more frequently in debates.

>> No.12019670
File: 37 KB, 375x523, 1513234845087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12019670

>>12019598
The Art of Being Right by Schopenhauer

>> No.12019679

>>12019598
Ive had the same urge anon but unfortunatley people here are too socially akward and retarded. Look for a book called "ancient rethoric for modern students" and practice. Pretty long read but worth it

>> No.12019734

>>12019598
I've found that my readings which contribute the most to my debating skills are those in the area of psychology.
In theory, given all the information and solid basis in logic, the truth is always self-evident.
In practice, information has any number of interpretations and logic rarely seems to be the deciding factor in any debate. Why should this be?

People associate ideas with their ego. To change one's mind is to exert control over their very being. Learning is failure in this mindspace because it entails admitting you were wrong in the past.

If you want to debate for sport, or in order to assert your ego, I recommend any books about con-artistry.
If you actually know something worth sharing, You have to learn to be patient and to defuse any antagonism right from the start, creating an environment where it's not humiliating to be proven wrong.
Either way it's psychology that you need.