Debate

सारः

  • संयतैः सत्पात्रैस् सहैव वादः। स च पूर्वपक्षकथनपूर्वक एव स्यात् सुव्यवस्थितः।
  • अयोग्यैस् सह वादो हेयः, वितण्डाऽपि बलिष्ठकारणेनैव कार्या।

पात्राभिज्ञानम्

  • पूर्वपक्षकथने यः‌ प्रमादवान्, यश्च+अव्यग्रतया यथार्थवचने प्रामाणिके ऽसमर्थः, स अयोग्यः।
  • यो हि वादे ऽपिक्षिते संयमे स्युव्यवस्थिततायां च न समर्थः, स अयोग्यः।
  • The right intention: Agreement on essential truth.
    • I like to debate to reach an agreement on the essential truth being discussed, rather than to nitpick on the unimportant peripherals, just show my smarts or escape the need to admit defeat.
    • Flaws of intention listed in the Sulabhā-janaka-saMvAda in (Śāntiparva / Book 12, Chapter 308) SG15.

कुवादि-लक्षणम्

  • Consistently ignores or misrepresents opponent’s position. (eg: erecting and taking down strawmen)
  • makes unsound arguments
  • starts from false premises
  • resorts to to venting/ rhetoric

वादायोग्यैश् चर्चा

चर्चायोग्यता

अयोग्यैस् सह वादो हेयः। किञ्च तृतीयेषु श्रावकेषु प्रभावनीयेषु सत्सु प्रतिवक्तव्यम् कदाचित्। स्वीयार्थप्रतिघाते धर्मप्रतिघाते च तच्छक्तिं प्रवृत्तिं च परिगणय्यैव तत्र निश्चेतव्यम्।

क्रमः

पक्षे ऽयोग्येभ्यस् तत्पक्षश्रवणमात्रं युक्तम्, किञ्च तत्र दोषदर्शनं वा सश्रमं स्वपक्षकथनं वा व्यर्थम्। अन्यथा मनस्येव नेपथे वाव्यग्रेण खण्डयित्वोपेक्षणीयास् ते।

पक्षे श्रावकान् उद्दिश्य सारः प्रस्तोतव्यः, उपहासो वाऽपि कार्यः।

Tricks for dealing with mala-fide debates or propaganda arguments from pretentious dunces: KV.

पूर्वपक्षाभिज्ञानम्

  • Adapt the principle of charity. (Wiki)

    • Nassim’s summary: “You can attack what a person *said* or what the person *meant*. The former is more sensational. The mark of a charlatan is to defend his position or attack a critic by focusing on *some* of his/her specific statement (“look at what he said”) rather than attacking his position (“look at what he means”), the latter of which requires a broader knowledge of the proposed idea.”

  • ShaD-linga from tAtparya-nirNaya - A way to gauge the essence of what one’s position :

    • The beginning ( upakrama) and the conclusion (upasamhāra)
    • abhyāsa: Repetition.
    • apūrvatā: That which is something unprecedented
    • phalam: The fruit of that study
    • arthavāda: Eulogy or praise.
    • upapatti: Demonstration through examples or analogies.

प्रमाणानि

Academia

I find the fixation on “academics” odd for a person capable of independent study and thought. Fixation on “sound scholarship” is a good thing - whether such is circulated via books, journals, blog posts, twitter threads or vAkyArtha-sabhA-s. Being prejudiced by “scholar got salary from some academy” is rather akin to “lineage-kanging” among so-called traditionalist Hindus.

Oft, appeals to “academic consensus” reminds me of similar appeals to “traditional paNDits” in some online arguments.

वाद-सौष्ठवे प्रयासः

  • पूर्वपक्ष-कथन-पूर्वकमेव स्वपक्षस्य कथनम्
  • परवादे दोषाणां ज्ञापनम्

इत्थं वादे वर्तमानाभ्याम् उभाभ्याम् अपि कार्यम्।

Correct contents

Correct delivery निर्दुष्ट-कथनम्

  • स्वपक्षस्य बिन्दवः सुसङ्ख्याताः क्रमबद्धाः सप्रयोजनाः स्युः। Focus on essential things, rather than peripherals.
  • Avoid flaws of expression.
    • Sulabhā-janaka-saMvAda in (Śāntiparva / Book 12, Chapter 308) SG15.
      • नातिह्रस्वः, नातिदीर्घः।
      • यथासम्भवम् असौम्यतया न वाच्यम्।

Emotion control

पराजयभीतिः, पराजयाभासभीतिर् वा न स्यात् - किञ्च बहुधा क्षोभयति मनः सा। The truth will win in the end, and it should ideally be clear to all participants at the end of the debate.

Reflection on perceptor

It’s of course not 100% fool-proof, but as a common heuristic people judge the perceptor by the quality of the disciple (“शिष्यपापं गुरोर् अपि”).

Eg. One would be doing chinnajIyar disservice if one’s defence of his statements were sub-standard. (Same holds true for chinnajIyar vis a vis rAmAnuja, and rAmAnuja vis a vis ALvArs).

Allowing saving of face

The ground rules established should be such that focus is sharply on the topics being discussed, and the ground rules - this makes discussion a relatively inoffensive impersonal mechanical process.

Even when you win a debate clearly, allow for face saving by conceding that the argument was good and that it is natural to be misled.

A note on irreverence to over-extended authority

My own experience of causing erudite scholars (RG, NiMi, ViSu, StTi, JaSc… ) to steam through the ears tells me its simply not worth it to give a damn (beyond issuing some basic clarification/ opening for friendship). Usually the steam dissipates after some time.

Ultimately you take what ever you find valuable from them without unnecessary ego issues on your side, and let those afflicted by vidyA-mada etc.. roil in the murk of their own follys. Somehow the first word that jumps to my mind for such curmudgeons is “स्थविर” ( = thera in sihalese, I believe).