Signs you don't know jack about what a debate is

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I have a journal entry about how to debate properly that I want to do but can't due to my hand having a fracture. (biking accident)

In the meantime, I wanted to gather a list of "signs you don't know jack about what a debate is."

examples...

Have you ever used the term "winning/losing the debate"?  If you do, you don't know jack about debating.

Do you look at political debates on TV and think they're the real deal?  If you do, you don't know jack about debating.

Do you understand the importance of falsification?  If you don't, you don't know jack about debating.

Do you understand the term "arguing from first principles"?  If you don't, you don't know jack about debating.

and so on.  Anyone got suggestions for the list?

[MrBogosity]

They'd need to understand burden of proof, be aware of fallacies such as the strawman, be aware of dubious tactics such as the Gish Gallop, and understand that, while emotional pleas might win over the audience, they do NOT mean you have the correct position.

[Ibrahim90]

also that if a position is not up to interpretation or discussion (e.g. evolution), then there is no serious room for debate.

[evensgrey]

And if you can't operate the basic mechanics of the language you're debating in, even after you've had a specific explanation of what you're doing wrong, why, and how to do it correctly...you're not even getting STARTED on debating.

[MrBogosity]

And if you can't operate the basic mechanics of the language you're debating in, even after you've had a specific explanation of what you're doing wrong, why, and how to do it correctly...you're not even getting STARTED on debating.

Can you give some examples?

[evensgrey]

Can you give some examples?

Well, Chris the fascist deleted most of them (apparently being supported by someone who demonstrated that he doesn't understand how to use the language they both grew up speaking was a bit too embarrassing for him), biot how about this gem:

aside from spouting bullshit can you actually come up with a coherent argument and not just a rant that leads nowhere?

I quoted the entirety of his text, with original incorrect punctuation and (lack of) capitalization.  He kept using capitalization incorrectly in every single reply to me even after I gave him a remedial lesson in the rules for capitalization and the example of why all Fascists are, definitionally, Italian, while all fascists are not.  He nay have been doing it intentionally, since he proceeded to do it again with the conflation of Communism and communism.  (As Hawkeye will be able to confirm, we actually make a rather big deal about this distinction in Canada.  There are Conservatives, for instance, which are all the members of a particular political party, and there are conservatives, which is a quite different group.  There are also Liberals, a rather authoritarian political party with no real position other than that they should govern, and liberals, which are almost completely unrelated to Liberals.  It matters because the thing designated by the proper noun is almost never the same as the thing designated by the generic noun, and not understanding the difference is willful ignorance.)

[Travis Retriever]

Do you ask for evidence, and when it's provided either name call, dodge, or pull a No True Scotsman?  Then you don't know jack about what a debate is.

Do make self detonating statements--e.g. 'empiricism doesn't work,' 'logic cannot work,' or 'property is bogus,' etc?  Then you don't know jack about what a debate is.

Do you substitute temper tantrums and/or sophistry (see franks & gklr in fail quotes) in place of reasoned logic?  Then you don't know jack about what a debate is.

[Ibrahim90]

Do make self detonating statements--e.g. 'empiricism doesn't work,' 'logic cannot work,' or 'property is bogus,' etc?  Then you don't know jack about what a debate is.

or the famous: "people are dumb, so we need a group of people to rule over us" deal.

[Travis Retriever]

or the famous: "people are dumb, so we need a group of people to rule over us" deal.

More specifically, "People are stupid.  Let's give them the right to choose their rulers!"