Can you hold down a debate?

Post Reply New Topic

Can you hold down a debate over a simple subject? Like for example, a debate about God.
I have many points about this particular subject but my brain thinks slower than most people. I never can have a fast response when debating with people, especially when the debate moves to more sketchy topics. I see that most NTs have basic functions that allows them to carry on a debate, even the less brighter ones. As for me, I always shy away when I disagree with people to avoid a confrontational debate. Is this normal for us?

I'm similar to you, bright but thinks slower when on the spot, and it gets worse when I'm not feeling at my best. If I'm well rested, haven't been stressed recently, and I feel comfortable with the person or people I'm talking to, I can do okay. But if I'm stressed out, not at ease, I do badly. I avoid debate situations even if I feel capable, because ultimately they become too exhausting and pointless to me.

well i try to avoid all debates and it works quite well, not sure if i'd like to do that when i'm a more grown adult though.

like you two said, i also have a really hard time coming up with quick retorts and answers on the spot, especially bad when i'm tired or don't know much about the subject but even when debating with something i'm interested in i'm likely yo get "forced into a corner", so to speak.
I'm not exactly so sure that being hot in debates is an NT thing, but it really seems like it is. i've never met an ASD folk offline so i wouldn't know wither way.

obviously online debates are easier for me. nobody is staring you down. (unless you're on Chatroulette or something)

Don't really ever debate in real life. In our family any 'debate' soons turns into a slanging match, and huffy cries of "oh don't be so stupid!!". It's even worse if my dad gets involved; I leave the room if he does.

Used to get stuck into online debates sometimes. Sometimes it would be a blast, particularly if I felt like I was making good points and generally outsmarting my opponent. Other times I'd go into meltdown mode and basically lose the plot. I eventually stopped participating in debates altogether; partly because I didn't have the energy anymore and partly because I didn't like myself afterwards when I lost all self-control - if I couldn't debate without losing it, I decided I didn't want to debate at all.

Nowadays, the fatigue seems to apply more strongly than ever. I've lost count of the number of times I've written half a post, then abandoned it because I'm too tired to think of how to end it.

Nope, once I've said what I think, I don't have anything more to say. Nothing they say will change my mind, and I'n not gonna repeat myself. I don't see any point in debates at all.
I think debates are mostly an NT thing, although I have known one aspie in the past who pretty much wanted to debate everything.

That's exactly how I feel too. But I only wish I was better at it.

When I was younger and sharper, I could. Either that, or I was just more naive and I thought I could. Nowadays though, I know I'm terrible at it.

I see debates as a strict logical scientific analysis with the goal to determine the truth cooperatively and share it.

However, I'm usually in bad company.
NTs use debates for something totally different.
I engage often, but as you might guess the end results are often poor and draw emotions that should never have come up.

The feeling I get most often is nausea, primarily as my reaction to the utter ineptitude of the debaters involved, and how emotion turns the whole thing into a circus.

Like others have said here, I am reserved and my responses do not usually come quickly.
"going with your gut" may work more than 50% of the time, but that range of probability is completely unacceptable for me.

I love engaging in online debates. I don't mind so much if I "lose," because I often don't know the person I'm speaking with. Also, I can elaborate upon my personal philosophies not worrying so much about the other person devaluing my personhood just because my thoughts and opinions on certain matters may differ.

While I'm not as comfortable with in-person debates, I do love the opportunity to debate with someone face-to-face. Often it's someone who is already a friend or who has demonstrated to me in some way that he or she is a tolerant person (I don't really like to engage with people who make blanket statements such as "Republicans are bigots," or "Democrats want a free lunch," or "libertarians are paranoid loons"). I speak noticeably slower when I have debates though, so points of the discussion are better etched in my head so I can easily navigate what the other person is either attacking or agreeing with. I do avoid conversations regarding:

1) Religion vs. atheism and vice versa
2) Abortion
3) Gay marriage
4) Criminalization of marijuana use and/or possession

I avoid those topics because it is highly unlikely that something new or of substance could be gleaned from debating them. It's like two sets of parents at an affluent school social function who try to "one-up" each other by comparing their kids to establish that "Little Johnny is better."

I don?t do well in unstructured situation. This includes debate. Typically, I can last maybe two ?volleys? (me saying something, them responding, me responding, etc.). Then, I hit a wall.

That's not true at all; most people are terrible debaters. Just look around the Internet; people can't put together a coherent argument to save their lives. If by "basic functions" you mean that they can talk/write/type in complete sentences that are roughly on topic, ok, but that's about as far as debating skills go for most people.

I can, and have many times. I recognize patterns--and, consequently, can judge arguments as good or bad-- very quickly. Anyone can get good at this with practice. If both participants are reasonable, it can be quite an enjoyable experience. For me, it's like a game of chess with words. When I argue, I have no agenda. I just like battles of wits. However, if the participants aren't reasonable, it's like playing chess with a pigeon. For that reason, I generally try to avoid the following topics: atheism and religion, gender issues, conspiracy theories, and the ethics of using animal products. I have found that when arguing these topics, people who are otherwise very intelligent can become emotionally driven, irrational creatures.

No because I get too emotional and I am not able to come up with facts regardless of whether I know them when I'm calm or not. It just makes me look stupid by the end. I end up repeating what I say as though the other person will reassure me, slur my words a bit, and just flat out stumble. It's not a pretty sight...

Usually, I would give categorized evidence (literary, historical, etc), so I know how to settle an argument. My brother and sister say I tend to talk very loudly, and frequently reprimanded by parents for talking like it without knowing.

I enjoy debating with people, even if we don't agree. I'm not sure how good I am at debating, but I can usually think of stuff to say quickly. I don't enjoy debating with people who use crappy arguments or disrespect me. I often notice that when I debate stuff online and people know my age they always have to mention it in an argument. I just wish they would explain exactly why they disagree with me instead of telling me I know nothing because of my age.

I've gotten that quite often on forums where the posters tend to be older and "working professionals." They tend to assume that because of my age and the fact that I'm not married or have children, I cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to properly engage in a discussion about socialized medicine, personal finances, and (ha!) youth unemployment. I've either been told to leave it to the grownups or I'm cast off as a "troll." So mature.