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

[Brian63]

This can apply either to debates that you are watching between other people, or perhaps to one you are a participant in yourself. How much of an impact do you think it has on the general audience (if there is one) for a person to be able to make the last response that is publicly seen/heard? If you are yourself a debater in it, do you make any effort at all to be able to have that last response, either by how the debate is pre-formatted or just typing in the last post (if it is a debate on a forum thread, for instance)?

I do not myself think it is at all the most significant factor in determining who wins or loses the debate (not that debates should be thought of as such a game in the first place, with winners and losers), but it can still have an important influence on people who are generally undecided at the end. People who are already decided on a particular viewpoint will not see them as importantly, however.

Often when I have debated some issue online, especially if on a fundamentalist Christian forum where I am heavily outnumbered and cannot expect to have the last word in the thread, I would explicitly offer to let the other debater(s) to have the last word. When people see that I do not respond back to them then, at least they will know it is not necessarily because I *could* not respond and that I was stumped by their argument, but rather it is because I just offered to let them have it. Other times, such as on more friendly fora, maybe I just want to get out for whatever reason, and so have found making that same offer to be a fairly convenient and friendly way to do so.

In real-life debates I have watched (either in person or on video), I think it is less of a factor, however. The overall performance of the debaters will have much more of an impact on the audience’s reaction than just the last words of the final speaker. People will recognize that the other person did not respond back, because that was part of the rules of the debate and not anything else (probably).

How important do you think the last word in a debate is? Is it commonly overrated? Underappreciated? Just right? Do you try at all to get that last word, when you are a participant in a debate, either in real life or online in a more casual thread?

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Bronzeage]

Some people have the idea they can make a statement which leaves no room for response and when the other guy says nothing, take this for victory.

The last word is of no particular value, if the words which preceded it did not make the point.

 

[Perspicuo]

I agree with Bronzeage. The point made is what matters, a phrase has to "get" you. For me, it's similar to why I watch stand up comedy. I watch it for the best comeback.

Nevertheless it has to be a strong part of your art to hold your opponent back so s/he doesn't steal the show in the last moment. Don't let your guard down ever, predict if your words might be used against you, and if you wish your opponent does take advantage of a soft spot so as to capture him, be sure you have enough time to nail him on the floor before time is over and you make an "own goal" (a self-goal, or goal against your own team in soccer).

 

[Under the Rose]

The last word is not as important as having made the best point.

The timing of the best point is the important part.

After that, you can let them talk as much as they want...watch the tail rotor come off in fact, as they finally come to realize that you have effectively clipped their wings.

As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "No need to chew my cabbage twice."

 

[Brian63]

I do largely agree with the above points about how the last point being made *should* not be overemphasized and *should* not be be treated with more significance than prior points just because of its position, but I think just disagree on the matter of whether or not it actually *does* do those things anyway, regardless of whether or not it *should.* I do think it is something of a human habit to remember most vividly the last argument, the last speech, the last points being made, and so that will give that corresponding debater a bit of an advantage still over any prior debaters. Their overall argument may suck in general, and so maybe in the end it will not make a significant-enough difference anyhow, but just getting the last word in still provides some advantage to them.

When debating another person, people also commonly (though not always) will try to end some of their individual posts or statements with some profound remark, on top of getting in the last overall post/statement. It is recognized that the last words read or heard are, all else being equal, more significant than the other words read or heard (yeah, this post too. ).

Brian

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The person who makes the last word wins.

I am now abusing my mod powers to close this thread right after my post, losers.

 

[fromderinside]

The person who makes the last word wins.

I am now abusing my mod powers to close this thread right after my post, losers.

You're lying.

Go ahead. Close the debate now and you may still be a winner (PCH).

 

[George S]

Speaking from experience as a debater in high school, I can testify to the power of the last word. In a formal debate there is a particular order to the speakers and I was last (2nd Affirmative). We won a 5-state interstate debate tournament, team #100 6-0, 1st on style points.

 

[WAB]

I think there's probably truth on both sides of any debate waged between intelligent adults. Since someone HAS to have the last word in any argument or debate, obviously having the last word counts for nothing, since a response can always be made to that last word, and so on, ad infinitum.

Ultimately, if a person knows they've been bested, that person should have the honesty to admit it. It's when a person is so stubborn that they resort to ad homs and scorn, or start quibbling over grammar and spelling, or something trivial like that and not pertinent to the argument, that any argument becomes pointless. It's no slight to anyone to bail out of a discussion once it's gotten to the point where it's pointless. That being said, it's easy for a person who's run out of steam to use "it's pointless" as an excuse for bailing.

 

[Togo]

I think it depends on the culture of the discussion. Formal debating, with tracking point, teams and bonuses for style, is a very American approach, that is based around rhetoric and an established order of what you can and can't do, and what does and doesn't count for you. It's largely useless in, say, an academic discussion, or a Singaporean business meeting. The UK equivalent is very much more informal, and has a different set of expectations as to what you're trying to achieve. Public debates are different again, as are legal arguments, and philosophy itself different still.

Getting the last word is handy, because the first and last points made are easiest to remember, all else being equal. However, in a great many discussions what's important is not who 'wins' the debate, but who produces the most memorable argument. After all, that may last in the minds of participants and audience well after the result itself has been forgotten.

Philosophy is about producing effective arguments, arguments that can be repeated and used by other people. 'winning' isn't really the point.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are a lot of people who agree with the last thing they heard. If this is your audience, speaking last is an advantage.

 

[WAB]

There are a lot of people who agree with the last thing they heard. If this is your audience, speaking last is an advantage.

That makes sense. But who wants that audience? Preaching to the choir is easy, but also sort of pointless. I'd much rather get involved with a group of people with vastly divergent views on all sorts of issues. Like at FRDB and here.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are a lot of people who agree with the last thing they heard. If this is your audience, speaking last is an advantage.

That makes sense. But who wants that audience? Preaching to the choir is easy, but also sort of pointless. I'd much rather get involved with a group of people with vastly divergent views on all sorts of issues. Like at FRDB and here.

It is the essence of Sophistry to present an argument in a fashion to get agreement, not to challenge people to consider all facts and possibilities.

 

[WAB]

You are a river to your people, B.

 

[Kharakov]

You are a river to your people, B.

It's more about being wrong, right? Seriously, it's easy to cause the resurrection of debate by trailing a nice juicy morsel of illogical sophistry at the end of the line.

 

[Trodon]

I would rather get the best word. If the other person repeats what he or she has said before and does not respond to my points, I see little point in continuing. If the other person becomes belligerent and insulting, I will point out that the first person who becomes angry in an argument loses, and quit.

 

[fast]

Persuasion is not in the job duties of the skilled logician.

 

[George S]

When my high school debate team won our 5-state interstate debate I had the position of second affirmative. I was the last speaker in all the debates. Having the last word (and the first, by the way) is much like the advantage of playing white in chess. You have a tempo.

Our negative team managed to win all their debates though. They never had the last word. It is the privilege of the last negative speaker to pose questions for the second affirmative. Our last negative speaker was good at posing difficult-to-answer questions.

It doesn't matter who has the last word, really. What you say and how you say it matters more.

Our negative team became a doctor and a lawyer. Our affirmative team a professor and a restaurateur who was murdered by the mob.

 

[Perspicuo]

When my high school debate team won our 5-state interstate debate I had the position of second affirmative. I was the last speaker in all the debates. Having the last word (and the first, by the way) is much like the advantage of playing white in chess. You have a tempo.

Our negative team managed to win all their debates though. They never had the last word. It is the privilege of the last negative speaker to pose questions for the second affirmative. Our last negative speaker was good at posing difficult-to-answer questions.

It doesn't matter who has the last word, really. What you say and how you say it matters more.

Our negative team became a doctor and a lawyer. Our affirmative team a professor and a restaurateur who was murdered by the mob.

Wait. Those were debates decided by a judge or jury.

Certainly a debate where there is no official judge nor final, official verdict, things are different. As much as there is a clear psychological phenomenon of "first impressions" there might be a process of "who jabs the hardest and is not answered to". I wonder if there's any behavioral research on this subject...

 

[Trodon]

On an internet forum that discusses controversial topics one frequently finds posters who have strong opinions, but they are not well informed. When their opinions are challenged, some of them become abusive.

I present my arguments calmly and logically, documenting my factual assertions. If others respond in kind, I continue the discussion, conceding points if justice requires concession.

If the discussion devolves into a forum war, I will stop posting, although not before making sure that I have presented my argument as best as I can.

I am aware that I cannot convince those who want to disagree with me. The better my argument is, the angrier they will get. Instead, I direct my posts to those who are interested in the topic, but not emotionally involved in it. I also like to imagine myself trying to impress a panel of competent debate judges.