How important is having “the last word” in a debate?

[Brian63]

When people debate each other, especially in a very hostile and aggressive debate, each side usually wants to get “the last word” in. Why do we have that tendency? Do we feel psychologically better ourselves if we can throw in that last jab and not feel like we were bullied down to the ground at the end? Does it bring us pleasure to insult the other person 1 last time before we call it quits?

Does it change if the debate is done in a private setting, or in front of a public audience? My own view is that having “the last word” is much more important to people when they are debating in front of an audience. We have something of a hero complex, and so we want to look like we withstood the last round of insults and stayed standing strong. It is not so important if the debate is held in a private manner though just between the participants.

If you are debating other people though, I think the goal should not be to try and persuade that debate opponent. A more realistic goal is to try and convince any onlookers and witnesses of the debate. You are not going to get your debate opponent to say “You know what, I change my mind on all this and I think you are right after all” especially if the 2 of you are engaged in a very hostile insult war with each other in front of an audience. Preserving our personal and public egos is much more important than actually learning and thinking clearly. If the goal then is to persuade the onlookers of the debate, I do think it is not important to get in the last word. What is more important is to get the last ***BEST*** word in. We should try to make our last contribution to the debate very easy to understand, very relatable, and very agreeable to for the audience. If the debate opponent responds to that post then with some stupid 1-liner or some mess of incoherent thoughts with insults, the onlookers would recognize that and see that you still “won” the debate even though you did not get in the very last word in the debate.

Do you try to get in the last word when you debate, either consciously or subconsciously? If you are only watching other people debate each other and one or both of them is very calm and relaxed, does that influence your thoughts about which person won the debate? If one or both of the debaters becomes very emotionally angry and insulting towards the other, is that another sign of who won the debate? How do you think other people determine who won a debate?

I do believe that debaters tend to take a provoking strategy, where each person tries to stay very calm and relaxed themselves during a debate, while also trying to provoke the opponent and make them angry. Onlookers then would see the calmer person as having been thinking rationally and logically, not just emotionally, so that would give them the appearance of having won the debate.

Brian

 

[James Brown]

I see this all the time in TV and movies. Two people are arguing, and one says something (even better if it's a Socratic question) and the other person is rendered speechless, with a "I never thought of that!" look on his face. Cue soft instrumental music.

Anyone watching is bound to think that having the last best word is what won the argument.

I agree that the intent of the debate is to influence the onlookers. But in my experience, the majority of onlookers are actually fan club members. When one of the debaters rattles off a loud-voiced zinger and half the audience erupts in applause and cheers, the other debater can fall into the trap of measuring his success based on an applause meter. Never mind that the zinger is argumentatively unsupportable, if it sounds good to your base, then that becomes all that matters.

 

[Brian63]

I agree that the intent of the debate is to influence the onlookers. But in my experience, the majority of onlookers are actually fan club members. When one of the debaters rattles off a loud-voiced zinger and half the audience erupts in applause and cheers, the other debater can fall into the trap of measuring his success based on an applause meter. Never mind that the zinger is argumentatively unsupportable, if it sounds good to your base, then that becomes all that matters.

Absolutely. It is amazing to see what happens when you see a virtual cocoon of people with similar ideologies all applauding each other and repeating the same script as each other, and see how many sloppy arguments and bad beliefs are allowed to seep in. Then when some outsider joins in and pushes for external critique, they get so defensive and hostile towards that person. They will let their own community's members get away with a lot more bad arguments and sloppy rebuttals, as long as they sustain the appearance of coming out on top of the debate. Style over substance. Tribalism in full force. That is why it is important for boards like this as well to also have opposing views aired.

Brian

 

[Shake]

An intriguing, thought-provoking opening statement can get the audience thinking before the other person has had a chance to say anything, so there may be something to going first. That said, I agree with the idea of the "last best word," as most will realize that any subsequent rebuttals will be lacking in substance and will likely tune out at that point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing that debate victors aren't based on what is actually true, it is more about presentation and speaking ability than anything else.

Of course, with Internet debating, having the last word is always very important. My favorite one is when someone says the enormously passive-aggressive "Well, clearly you feel you need to be right about everything, so I'll just let you be." last word.

 

[James Brown]

"Well, you must be right."

Perfect way to get a blowhard to shut up without conceding a thing.

 

[Elixir]

Seeing that debate victors aren't based on what is actually true, it is more about presentation and speaking ability than anything else.

Of course, with Internet debating, having the last word is always very important. My favorite one is when someone says the enormously passive-aggressive "Well, clearly you feel you need to be right about everything, so I'll just let you be." last word.

"Well, you must be right."

Perfect way to get a blowhard to shut up without conceding a thing.

Well, you guys seem pretty sure about that, so I guess it's pointless to try to convince you otherwise.

 

[Brian63]

Or, after they lay out a barrage of insults about how you are stupid and arrogant and an evil prick who deserves to burn in hell for all eternity while they will laugh at you from heaven, just say...

"I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you."

They do not know how to respond to that and still appear as the good guy. It will be dead silence, which means you won.

Brian

 

[Shake]

Seeing that debate victors aren't based on what is actually true, it is more about presentation and speaking ability than anything else.

Which is likely why many will say that William Lane Craig "wins" lots of debates with atheists. His presentation and speaking ability are indeed top-notch, even if his arguments are garbage.

Of course, with Internet debating, having the last word is always very important. My favorite one is when someone says the enormously passive-aggressive "Well, clearly you feel you need to be right about everything, so I'll just let you be." last word.

Your first statement here is often why I will continue in some online discussion. The other is to get some counter ideas out to those who merely lurk in such discussions, those who often have no intention of joining the discussion. I may have to use something like what you mention in the latter part of the above in the future to bail from such "debates".

Or, after they lay out a barrage of insults about how you are stupid and arrogant and an evil prick who deserves to burn in hell for all eternity while they will laugh at you from heaven, just say...

"I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you."

They do not know how to respond to that and still appear as the good guy. It will be dead silence, which means you won.

Brian

Yes. I like that, and may have to steal it.

 

[humbleman]

I think a good debater won't mind at all about the tricks of the opposite side leaving the argument with smart phrases.

Saying the last word is not what is important, and less important is as well how many listeners or readers intervene and take side in any of both debaters.

To me, the important thing is the interchanged messages between the argument.

I have obtained precious information from debates of all kind. I did notice lots of smart moves from one side misleading the focus of a debate into grounds other than the debate itself because the contender enjoyed great base foundation.

In many forums, great debaters are banned when many others ask for their removal when the debater is strong enough to make all of them eat dirt with their conventional ideologies.

To me a debate is a war of words, and I prefer to obtain benefit from this war by knowing what kind of strategy is used, what kind armament and its quality is employed, etc. And about who wins, well, best is to applaud the winner because he won, but not necessarily because he was in the right path.

 

[Bronzeage]

Competitive debating is a strange world, probably no less strange than competitive figure skating or boxing. In all three, there will be a panel of judges who render a subjective decision as to who "won." Boxing is the only of the three where a competitor has the opportunity to take the decision out of the judges hands, by making his opponent unable to continue. While a debater might render his opponent speechless, a figure skater is not allowed to trip a fellow skater.

However, to address the original question, about the advantage of having the last word, yes, it is an advantage. It's and advantage in any sport with subjective scoring. It's generally conceded that a strong skater has a better chance at a high score if they skate in the second half of the competition. Judges are reluctant to give high scores in the beginning, but after half the field has skated, they have a solid idea of the level of skill. In a boxing match, judges will score higher for hits in later rounds. There's some element of psychology in this, and all the objective scoring systems in the world, with mandatory figures and leaps, cannot overcome it. It's natural that a debate judge will give more weight to a concise and well presented argument, which comes right at the bell, than if it was the first of the day.

 

[Kharakov]

Debates are bullshit. I wouldn't say that in a debate, but they are.

 

[Hermit]

Internal debates are fun. What's more, you can finish up winning or drawing, but you don't ever lose. You also always get to have the first as well as the last word.

 

[Kharakov]

Internal debates are fun. What's more, you can finish up winning or drawing, but you don't ever lose. You also always get to have the first as well as the last word.

Not if you're crazy...

 

[Bronzeage]

Debates are bullshit. I wouldn't say that in a debate, but they are.

A supposition without foundation and a claim unsupported by any submitted evidence.

 

[Kharakov]

Debates are bullshit. I wouldn't say that in a debate, but they are.

A supposition without foundation and a claim unsupported by any submitted evidence.

Which statement specifically?

Can you envision a way to apply similar logic (to the logic applied to the liar's paradox) to the pair of statements interpreted as one?

Merry Christmas.

 

[bigfield]

To me a debate is a war of words, and I prefer to obtain benefit from this war by knowing what kind of strategy is used, what kind armament and its quality is employed, etc.

And remember, anything goes in debate, including surprise attacks from submarines U-boats.