# Debate Competition - NTs ..Who would "win"?



## ItsEvan (Aug 4, 2011)

I chose INTP because @_Shahada_ , @Zombie Jesus and @_Cover3_ are my heroes.


----------



## ALNF1031 (Jul 27, 2011)

I choose INTP because I'm biased. Also ponies.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

I vote INTP because I'm part of @ItsEvan's triumvirate of heroes.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

INTPs usually can keep track of everything and point out any fallacy that occurred. INTJs, though, will argue the point in and of itself... I'm not sure which would win in a real debate. 

ENTPs hold no chance in my mind, although they are forceful they often mess up and one little comment can make their entire argument crumble. I'm not sure about ENTJs though.


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

Ozymandias said:


> I really like this idea! And needless to say i've given my feedback already.
> 
> To summarize: Te-Ni expresses itself with rigid logic, it first pulls learned knowledge and delivers it clearly to an opponent e.g: (Here are the facts) Then with Ni, synthesizes interrelationships between the facts to produce a solid argument to wield in a debate.
> 
> ...


As mentioned by Souljorn, I find it hard to debate something I'm not comfortable with because of so many variables that could affect the outcome. That being said, when intentionally debating the hardest part is putting into words what seems so clear to me. The connections, being the Ti, seem to just fall in place and require almost no effort to make sense of them. Thus when debating, anything my opponent says has to go through a series of layers, at any point hitting the dead end of false. Only if it manages to pass all the filters will I put effort into connecting it to the whole picture. At that point I let Ne take over and start churning out how it (a) matches with my existing information or (b) doesn't match with my existing information. The Ne takes what the opponent says and starts feeding me with the different interpretations/perspectives for that given point. Only then, after reflecting, will the appropriate answer be given, regardless of my original stance.

Ne forces me to see the general idea of what the opponent is bringing to the table, and Ti filters it down to the specific idea. Regardless of the points you mention, the Ne will find a way to connect them (seeing the big picture). Once connected, Ti will then offer the solution (rebuttal) based on that pattern of argument.

Ti-Ne seems to first find the outline of the argument, narrow it down to the key ideas, and then uses Ti to sort out the appropriate response. There is no need of facts, for the general rules will provide the facts if that much detail is necessary. Seems to be a complete reversal (unsurprisingly) of Te-Ni. Main weakness would be trying to find the connection of something when in reality there is no connection.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

I had a debate with an ISTJ earlier this month.

Premise: We were doing some maintenance in the mechanical room at a water park. I noticed that on all the machines and pipes there was a crusty white substance spattered all over the place. For me it was intuitive what this substance was, salt. Without hesitating I tasted some of it and not surprisingly it was super salty (I better not get dirty jokes relating to this -.-). The ISTJ I was working with right away said "Why would you do that? that was pure chlorine you just tasted". I was stunned for a second; Not because I thought I just ate chlorine but because i was perplexed that someone would actually make that connection. 

An argument ensued from this and his case went as follows: There is chlorine in the pools - therefor chlorine accumulates on the machine after a while. - Very straight forward, no depth or analysis into any other possibilities.

Mine went as follows: The pools get their initial source from the well water below the park- Well water in this region is known to be salty- On hot days at the park we loose hundreds of Gallons of water to evaporation- salt concentration always increases- When the salt water splashes on machines in the hot room it evaporates leaving behind salt residue.

Notice Te extracting facts from the environment and my use of Ni to connect these to come to a rational conclusion. 

To set the record straight we asked our technical director and of course it was salt... I also won myself 10$ that day.


----------



## Monte (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm trying to figure out where this misconception of ENTPs not being able to stay on topic and use purely Ne and no real argument.

First of, you're stupid and wrong.

I, honestly, can't remember the last time I've lost an argument, no matter who or what type it's with. I use logical facts, emotional appeal if it applies the person, and draw likely, pretty much always correct after research, conclusions using evidence. My brain runs at the speed of light, emotional arguments are not perceived, so... I don't know who told whatever of you idiots that ENTPs aren't good at this, but, again, you're wrong.

But as a disclaimer, there are some out there who don't know what they're doing and topic jump because they've run out of arguments.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

Monte said:


> First of, you're stupid and wrong.


Well, you've you certainly proven your debating skills here. :dry:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Monkey King said:


> I play defensively with INTPs. Baiting someone is strictly when I want to win but normally I don't care if I lose with an INTP because I end up learning something new.


Okay. I think you're cool.  ... even if it's just cuz you agree with me. 

I'm not much concerned about winning or losing anymore, as long as I learn something in the process. In fact, discussions are a win-win, since you either win or you end up advancing your understanding of the topic.

I don't really know any ENTJ guys IRL or even that many on forums, so I like reading your [collective "your" = ENTJ guys'] posts. It's one of the types I feel I least understand, for some reason.

As far as the topic goes, yes -- define the context and what rules are necessarily in play, and then you can determine which type has an advantage. But in a freeform argument, with no constaint on the participants, basically there's no way to define victory either; people can just refuse to agree they've lost. 

I think in those constraints, INTP will get bored and walk if there's no clear set of conceptual rules guiding the discussion; I know I don't invest energy in a debate where the other person can just say, "No, you're wrong," regardless of what is said. I'm also quick to determine whether we share enough common assumptions on which the debate is based, so I can see whether it's even feasible to debate an outcome.

I've found the ENTPs can wear people down by sheer verbage splatter (a relentless assault of words) and jumping tracks from angle to angle; INTP definitely catches inconsistencies not just in the overall logic used but in what and how things have been presented in the actual discussion itself. I've found ENTJs kind of intimidating, since you always seem so sure of yourself; I have to ignore your demeanor and make sure I just focus on content.



Monte said:


> I'm trying to figure out where this misconception of ENTPs not being able to stay on topic and use purely Ne and no real argument.
> 
> First of, you're stupid and wrong.
> 
> I, honestly, can't remember the last time I've lost an argument, no matter who or what type it's with. I use logical facts, emotional appeal if it applies the person, and draw likely, pretty much always correct after research, conclusions using evidence. My brain runs at the speed of light, emotional arguments are not perceived, so... I don't know who told whatever of you idiots that ENTPs aren't good at this, but, again, you're wrong.


ENTP Superpower #23: Amazing audacity at bluffing while holding nothing in the hand and only crappy cards in the hole.


----------



## darknight0522 (Jul 13, 2010)

I love debating because I think it is the best way to learn/extract more information from the other person....Using my Ne I can "see" both sides of an argument but sometimes I deliberately choose to take a stand opposite the other person (usually the "loosing side")...in the process of the debate I use Ti to I point out the flaws in his as well as my own argument and most times it becomes a learning session for me...

So I just use debate to *bounce ideas off* the others.... I think this would be true for all Ne dominant/auxiliary personalities 

many times during a debate I just throw in an idea which at first looks irrelevant to my INTJ friend and gradually I fill in the gaps to connect it to the subject of debate...it annoys the hell out of him

but if I am not interested in debating then I just let the other person do the talking and only thing I do is to use Ti to find flaws in his arguments...


----------



## reallypoorasian (Aug 19, 2011)

I personally really like we're having a debate about debate.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I think I'll put in a vote for ENTJs. They are damn good at it, louder than me - and end up arguing the same topic at the end as the beginning, which is less likely, though not impossible, with NTPs.

They also were rated as the "most argumentative type" in an article I read a while back - when I find it, I shall post the link.
It was ENTJ>INTJ>INTP>ENTP

Here we are: the list is on page 65. For your reading pleasure:
http://aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol66_0706_apti.pdf

Best quotation from the article:


> In general, argumentativeness is considered a constructive communication trait, because the messages are content-oriented, not oriented toward attacking an individual, and high argumentativeness scores have been linked with positive outcomes in group and organizational experiences (Martin et al., 1998; Schullery, 1998). In his extensive review of argumentative literature, Rancer (1998) emphasized, “Perhaps the most important overall finding based on this body of research is that all of the outcomes or consequences of being argumentative are positive. That is, being motivated and skilled in argumentative communication is clearly considered positive across contexts and situations”


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

NTJs seem better at debates. Reductionists.
They may hang onto a the implications of a misused argument, rather than hold onto the idea being expressed.

NTPs seem better at discussions. Expansionists.
They can lose logical flow/structure due to jumping the gun with dot connecting.


----------



## E_N_T_P (Aug 9, 2011)

Who would win? Depends who the judges are and if they "get it".


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

E_N_T_P said:


> Who would win? Depends who the judges are and if they "get it".


Now ask yourself: Would an INTP's answer stemming from Ti and Ne be too abstract for a "normal" judge to comprehend? Likewise would an ENTJ's ability to deliver facts and measurable criteria not be advantageous in such a situation?


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

Debate Competition - NTs ..Who would "win"?
INTP-can find logical loopholes Legal Eagles
ENTP-constantly adding new facts/ideas to the debate that can overwhelm opponents easily
INTJ-logical,shrewd,strategists. Comes second.
ENTJ- Wolf, got to be Top Dog, so they would win. 

P says it is not the quality of the argument that counts.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

Ozymandias said:


> Now ask yourself: Would an INTP's answer stemming from Ti and Ne be too abstract for a "normal" judge to comprehend? Likewise would an ENTJ's ability to deliver facts and measurable criteria not be advantageous in such a situation?


Ah, but then you're implying that a "normal" judge is the "good" or "correct" type of judge in this scenario. Those facts and measurable criteria too often find themselves relying on unasserted (or even unproven) claims. What if we were debating before an omniscient God?


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

Coppertony said:


> Ah, but then you're implying that a "normal" judge is the "good" or "correct" type of judge in this scenario. Those facts and measurable criteria too often find themselves relying on unasserted (or even unproven) claims. What if we were debating before an omniscient God?


Then the type with the most cogent arguments wins. This still doesn't help us reach a conclusion as to who is the better debater. It seems that the votes will have to be based on the arguments we brought forth in this forum and therefor personal opinion...


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

With an audience as judge-- it's more than likely that an ENTJ will win. Te will be able to articulate complex systems in laymans term.

And if God was judge then I'd simply ask who would win. There'd be no point in debating after the question is answered.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

Monkey King said:


> With an audience as judge-- it's more than likely that an ENTJ will win. Te will be able to articulate complex systems in laymans term.
> 
> And if God was judge then I'd simply ask who would win. There'd be no point in debating after the question is answered.


Now that you mention it, my INTP friend can't express his thoughts verbally (in a language any layman can comprehend) to save his life! That has to count for something.


----------

