Debate Guide: Don't be too rational
The most vehement moral realists and "child savers" frequently win debates, public policy changes and media adulation. This is not because their arguments are irrational but because some of the most irrational parts of their arguments are at the same time extremely powerful when articulated with grit and passion.
Most people, as a result of low intelligence and/or poor education, do not have the ability to reason beyond "making sense" of an argument at the point it enters their head. They do not have the ability, patience or good faith to question widely held beliefs by employing deductive reasoning.
While your readers' level of reasoning ability depends on the platform (Reddit has higher levels of debate-literacy than TikTok, etc, see starting a debate), there is a practical need for irrationality in just about any debate. Dry reason alone is not likely to overcome the most entrenched taboo of the last two centuries.
Plausibility
When working from a debate guide, plausibility is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as offering the response a sharp, alert, but relatively disinterested person could have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing, then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as knowing too much about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.
Common hacks
Here are a number of irrational devices you can use in your debates:
- Your own experiences - You can argue from your own personal experience. This can be touted as the very reason you want to press forward an argument. This technique is unlikely to work for sex offenders, but may help increase understanding of non-offending pedophiles and adults with experiences of childhood/teenage "abuse" they recall fondly. Remember, because we do not know how certain arguments pertain to your experiences, our guide does not mention personal experiences as often as you should.
- Reproduced anecdotes - As detailed above, people are more willing to learn from personal experiences and spoken word. The arguments of a remote layman who could have any number of motives are likely to be ignored if they are not shown to pertain to real life.
- Thinking of the Children - It is irrational to base a whole argument around its implications on children. However, arguing that "even though it may have been slightly disturbing but harmless for the kid, the adult enjoyed it so much it was worthwhile" is one form of rationality that should be checked at the door.
- Authority - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our research section and adverse effects article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.
Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" (not recommended, unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid any advanced use of rational devices. In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/truthiness rationalizations and factoids. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of Gogglebox or Aussie Gold Hunters.