I thought of suggesting that someone write some notes on comment debate style, then realized that I'm someone. If you are already a seasoned debater, please add to this thread.
First, it is important to stick to the topic, in this case polygamy. Do not try to mix in other issues (patriarchy, gender roles, or heaven forbid, the flatness or age of the earth) as this will at best dilute your argument, and more often will be so divisive as to destroy any chance of winning your point. We should take a lesson from other civil rights activists (you all realize that's what you are becoming, right?). Short term, we are trying to turn the tide on public perception, to raise the public acceptability of what we are promoting. The long term goal is to draw many diverse, often mutually hostile factions into just enough of an alliance to get what we want passed into law.
Second, do not make it your goal to "win" a debate with the person you are directly debating. Usually their mind is totally made up. Instead, our goal should be to present PM as the "smarter" (or more rights-respecting or socially responsible or whatever) choice, so that the undecided observers of the debate are left with a more favorable impression of PM than when we started. You should view the person who is the direct target of you comments as an opportunity to presents your side of the debate in its best light. To that end, pick out the person who will best facilitate that (meaning don't debate trolls).
Corollary to the second point, since you cannot win against your opponent, don't try to have the last word. They aren't likely to let you have it anyway. Remember who your audience is, state your point as well as you can, then just let it go.
Third, avoid big blocks of text, they'll only get skipped. Try to keep comment posts short, address just the major points, ignore the minor ones. While comment debates have a certain urgency before they grow stale, avoid responding in a hurry. Write your post, but then let it sit on your desktop without posting. Come back after a bit and see if you still want to post what you have written.
Fourth, while swaying the observers is paramount, there is also value in giving relief and comfort to sympathetic onlookers or beleaguered defenders, and to demoralizing opponents. But don't feel obligated to debate someone clearly out of your league, no should you sink to dealing with trolls on their own level. Neither will help you toward your goal.
Rhetorical or formal debate techniques can be useful, but can also make you look like a bully or a jerk. Use appropriately. Thus, if someone claims PM is just the slippery slope from gay marriage, correct them and say no, its the next logical step after legalizing interracial marriage. You defuse the divisiveness of gay marriage (which will only be a distraction), and imply PM should be just as acceptable as interracial marriage. (Nobody wants to be accused of opposing IRM, which would make their position look racist.)
I encourage others to add to these points.
You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks. - Winston Churchill
First, it is important to stick to the topic, in this case polygamy. Do not try to mix in other issues (patriarchy, gender roles, or heaven forbid, the flatness or age of the earth) as this will at best dilute your argument, and more often will be so divisive as to destroy any chance of winning your point. We should take a lesson from other civil rights activists (you all realize that's what you are becoming, right?). Short term, we are trying to turn the tide on public perception, to raise the public acceptability of what we are promoting. The long term goal is to draw many diverse, often mutually hostile factions into just enough of an alliance to get what we want passed into law.
Second, do not make it your goal to "win" a debate with the person you are directly debating. Usually their mind is totally made up. Instead, our goal should be to present PM as the "smarter" (or more rights-respecting or socially responsible or whatever) choice, so that the undecided observers of the debate are left with a more favorable impression of PM than when we started. You should view the person who is the direct target of you comments as an opportunity to presents your side of the debate in its best light. To that end, pick out the person who will best facilitate that (meaning don't debate trolls).
Corollary to the second point, since you cannot win against your opponent, don't try to have the last word. They aren't likely to let you have it anyway. Remember who your audience is, state your point as well as you can, then just let it go.
Third, avoid big blocks of text, they'll only get skipped. Try to keep comment posts short, address just the major points, ignore the minor ones. While comment debates have a certain urgency before they grow stale, avoid responding in a hurry. Write your post, but then let it sit on your desktop without posting. Come back after a bit and see if you still want to post what you have written.
Fourth, while swaying the observers is paramount, there is also value in giving relief and comfort to sympathetic onlookers or beleaguered defenders, and to demoralizing opponents. But don't feel obligated to debate someone clearly out of your league, no should you sink to dealing with trolls on their own level. Neither will help you toward your goal.
Rhetorical or formal debate techniques can be useful, but can also make you look like a bully or a jerk. Use appropriately. Thus, if someone claims PM is just the slippery slope from gay marriage, correct them and say no, its the next logical step after legalizing interracial marriage. You defuse the divisiveness of gay marriage (which will only be a distraction), and imply PM should be just as acceptable as interracial marriage. (Nobody wants to be accused of opposing IRM, which would make their position look racist.)
I encourage others to add to these points.
You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks. - Winston Churchill
