Tibetan Debate — Cheat Sheet

1 · Challenger & Defender — the Purpose of the Two Seats

Challenger

Already knows the thesis. Uses consequences to show the inconsistencies in the defender’s view, and reasons to establish what is true — “consequences are tools to help other people know; reasons are tools for you knowing.” Reads every answer as a diagnosis of what the defender has and hasn’t ascertained.

Defender

Holds a position and genuinely wishes to know the predicate. Answers only from the four moves, one step at a time — no pre-empting, no speeches. A clear-cut answer every time: hedging (“it could be either”) means there is no debate.

Not sophistry, not outwitting — the challenger works the defender’s mistaken conviction into doubt, then into knowledge.

2 · The Challenger Posits a Predicate on a Subject

Take the subject, [subject] — it follows it is [predicate], because [reason].

“Take sound — it follows it is impermanent, because it is produced.”
The challenger posits the predicate on the subject — that is the thesis — and supplies the reason that must establish it.

3 · The Three Modes — How a Predicate Is Definitively Established

1

Attribute of the subject

The evidence, merely ascertained by valid cognition to be present in the subject, in accord with the way the proof has been stated — product is present in sound: “sound is produced.”

2

Positive pervasion

The evidence, ascertained to be present in only the set of homologous cases, owing to its relation to the predicate — product is found only among the impermanent, like a pot.

Homologous case (the similar class): “that which is not empty of the predicate, in accord with the way the thesis has been stated” — for “sound is impermanent”: everything impermanent — pot, lightning, a thought.

3

Negative pervasion

The evidence, ascertained to be only absent in the set of heterogeneous cases — product is nowhere among the permanent, like space.

Heterogeneous case (the dissimilar class): “that which is empty of the predicate, in accord with the way the thesis has been stated” — everything not impermanent: space, even non-existents (chicken lips).

All three modes are the evidence itself — mode ② is not the sentence “whatever is produced is impermanent”; it is product, qualified. “These are the three modes of a correct sign. They exist because there is a relation. Everything else is wrong.” — Pramāṇavārttika, Ch. 1, opening verse

4 · The Defender’s Moves — No Other Response Is Allowed

Say	When	Meaning	Names the evidence as
Why?	at the thesis	Show me the reason — a question, not a reply; it moves the debate.	not yet stated
Accept	at the thesis	The statement holds. Concession.	correct (for you)
Reason not established	at the reason	The reason isn’t ascertained in the subject — mode ① fails.	unestablished
No pervasion	at the reason	The reason doesn’t entail the predicate — modes ② ③ fail.	inconclusive

These four are the entire vocabulary of the defender’s seat. Conversational speech is forbidden — “debate is only efficient if you can reduce it to subject–predicate–reason and the four responses. Constrict yourself and always say less.”

5 · The Stages of Validating a Reason

Unestablished

Not even mode ① — the reason is not ascertained to be in the subject.
“Sound is impermanent because it has pink horns.”

defender says: reason not established → challenger proves mode ① on the subject

→

Inconclusive

Mode ① holds, but the pervasions are neither ascertained nor distorted — doubt remains.
“…because it is an object of knowledge.”

defender says: no pervasion → challenger shows the relation, with examples both ways

→

Correct

All three modes ascertained by valid cognition — for both parties.
“…because it is produced.”

only “accept” remains — inference is born

Contradictory (the wrong turn)

Mode ① holds but the pervasions are ascertained in a distorted manner — the reason proves the opposite of the thesis: “sound is permanent because it is produced.” The challenger exposes this with a consequence.

Evidence is classified relative to the person: the same “because it is produced” is unestablished for one who hasn’t ascertained sound as produced, inconclusive while the relation is unascertained, correct once all three modes are seen. Each defender’s move names the failing mode; each repair by the challenger climbs one rung.

6 · Eliminating Confusion Through Inference

Conviction

a mistaken certainty, held — pervasions distorted

evidence: contradictory

→

Consequence

built from your own commitments — can’t say reason not established, can’t say no pervasion, can’t accept

all three exits blocked

→

Doubt

the conviction collapses; now you truly ask

you say: “why?”

→

Proof

mode ① established, then the pervasions through examples

answers die: RNE, then NP

→

Inference

the three modes recollected together — fresh, incontrovertible knowing

only “accept” remains