Illogical and Unfair *Debating*

[Starman]

What has quite remarkably been overlooked by everyone, and in particular atheists, who lay claim to intellectual and rational superiority, and who obviously outnumber Christians here, is the utter lack of fairness.

During every debate I have watched or read about, rules provide equal numbers of participants, who are given equal time to make their points. Clearly that is not the case on this, or any other atheist/religious forum I have encountered online.

How could so obvious an unfair practice be permitted, for so long?

To the extent that anyone has previously made this point, I have never read it, here or anywhere else. Please provide the link to the topic elsewhere in this forum, if it exists.

How can debate said to be either fair or rational when one side is argued by dozens of people, who pose far more questions, points, and challenges than the other side? This is only too often reflected in comments such as, "You never answered"...(participant #100.)

Debate rules need to be modified in the interest of fairness and rationality. Many ganging up on one, or a few, has long been considered to be bullying, and rightly so. Has any rational atheist proposed equal numbers of debaters, with each side given equal numbers of posts, of equal length here? If so, where? If not, why not?

There is no love, no civility, in repeating ad nauseum, "There is no god and you cannot prove it.... (to our satisfaction), but please try. (snark)"

The Christian equivalent to that irrational position is, "You're going to hell if you don't change (snark)." But that Christian position is not something Christians fabricated. It is fundamental to the faith, perhaps in the same way that Christianity cannot be "proven" to the satisfaction of virtually all atheists.

[Ancient of Years]

.

Unless your opponent is a southpaw. Those sinister lefties!

Good one. I imagine few know that "sinister lefties" is redundant.

Where do redheads rank in this matter?

Right up there.

Here is my girlfriend.

OK, so she doesn't know about it yet. In fact she does not know about ME yet.

[Excubis]

Simple go to one on one debate. This eliminates the gang up, an open forum is open to limit openness would render the open forum moot. As for time well no forum is timed, I do agree a real time section would be awesome yet I am not a programmer by any means so have no inclination of mechanics of this being possible on a forum site. I will say would probably only work in a one on one debate.

[cnorman19]

The problem I have with "illogical and unfair debate" around here is that some members dismiss and/or ignore arguments entirely and then behave as if they have scored a victory and proven their case; or they distort and misstate their opponents' statements to the point where they become caricatures, and then pretend that they are actually debating when they are only responding to a cartoon character of their own making -- and a one-on-one debate isn't going to solve that class of problem.

The rules have always been lax about dishonest and deceptive debating. Those issues are supposed to be "handled in debate" -- but sometimes a member is oblivious to criticisms and arguments, even quite detailed ones, and blithely dismisses them without rebuttal or response as well. In that case, one wonders exactly how one is to handle these matters "in debate." It's too bad.

[Danmark]

The problem I have with "illogical and unfair debate" around here is that some members dismiss and/or ignore arguments entirely and then behave as if they have scored a victory and proven their case; or they distort and misstate their opponents' statements to the point where they become caricatures, and then pretend that they are actually debating when they are only responding to a cartoon character of their own making -- and a one-on-one debate isn't going to solve that class of problem.

The rules have always been lax about dishonest and deceptive debating. Those issues are supposed to be "handled in debate" -- but sometimes a member is oblivious to criticisms and arguments, even quite detailed ones, and blithely dismisses them without rebuttal or response as well. In that case, one wonders exactly how one is to handle these matters "in debate." It's too bad.

It's like the first rule of informal debate: appear confident in your smugness and declare yourself the winner, imitating Monty Python's Black Knight.

Tho' the dishonest or unfair debater does not show he has been defeated, he has and others know it because if the refutation is properly crafted, he is convicted with his own words.

BTW, welcome back Charles. May your stay be a long one.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 34 by Danmark]

Thanks very much; I appreciate the kind words and the good wishes -- and that last remains to be seen.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 33 by cnorman19]

Charles, the unbalance disturbs me because I value (and encourage in personal communication) CAPABLE Theistic debaters. You may be aware that in past years I contacted divinity schools inviting faculty and students to participate in our debates. The only known result was Mcarma – remember the fake "renowned theology professor" who couldn't remember when he was born – but who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam according to his tales. I nearly got in trouble with Admin and Moderators for "hounding" him – until I provided sound evidence that he was not who he claimed.

Otseng has mentioned inviting capable Christian debaters. I do not know the outcome.

Perhaps a reasonable solution to the imbalance is for Theists to recruit others who share their opinions and positions – rather than complaining that they are outnumbered.

The problem I have with "illogical and unfair debate" around here is that some members dismiss and/or ignore arguments entirely and then behave as if they have scored a victory and proven their case; or they distort and misstate their opponents' statements to the point where they become caricatures, and then pretend that they are actually debating when they are only responding to a cartoon character of their own making -- and a one-on-one debate isn't going to solve that class of problem.

In my opinion, it is totally irrelevant whether a person thinks they have "scored a victory and proven their case." Readers decide for themselves

The rules have always been lax about dishonest and deceptive debating.

I also dislike dishonest, deceptive debate tactics. How, might that be addressed by rules or policies?

However, it is amusing to watch dishonorable debate tactics being used in lieu of substantive debate – perhaps by people thinking the "win" or that they fool readers.

If rules requiring substantiating claims and statements (without considering the Bible as authoritative or a proof of truth) were rigidly enforced that would be disastrous for Biblicists / Literalists / Fundamentalists – and perhaps other degrees of religiosity.

Those issues are supposed to be "handled in debate" -- but sometimes a member is oblivious to criticisms and arguments, even quite detailed ones, and blithely dismisses them without rebuttal or response as well. In that case, one wonders exactly how one is to handle these matters "in debate." It's too bad.

I credit readers with the ability to evaluate what is said on all sides of a debate – and decide for themselves what is credible and what is not. There is no "win or lose" here as there is in school debate with judges.



Below I address in some detail Starman's OP – although he has not signed in for a month after being an active member for a month (and earning Probation).

What has quite remarkably been overlooked by everyone, and in particular atheists, who lay claim to intellectual and rational superiority, and who obviously outnumber Christians here, is the utter lack of fairness.

The perception of "Atheists" claiming intellectual or rational superiority may well stem NOT from any actual claims, but from the conduct and content of debates. There does seem to be an imbalance in apparent intelligence and rationality on average between Theist vs. Non-Theist debate presentations. It doesn't seem to be just numbers of participants – but capability.

In a randomly chosen list of ten active debaters from each "side of the aisle", what theistic position is likely to have the most capable debaters? If the balance is in favor of Non-Theists in a random selection, what are some reasonable explanations?

During every debate I have watched or read about, rules provide equal numbers of participants, who are given equal time to make their points. Clearly that is not the case on this, or any other atheist/religious forum I have encountered online.

Suggest a rule that would address this "problem."

How could so obvious an unfair practice be permitted, for so long?

It appears to me as though the primary "unfairness" occurs when Theists attempt to claim knowledge regarding supernaturalism which they cannot substantiate with anything more than testimonials, opinions, legends, myths, folklore (ancient or modern).

The position "take my word for it (or his word or this book's word)" is exceptionally weak as a debate position. This is not overcome by the typical "you take someone's word for everything." No one's word is required to observe that water runs downhill unless confined or obstructed.

A "side" that lacks credible, verifiable supporting information is at a decided disadvantage in debate. This may not be apparent to those who enter debate on our "level playing field" expecting the arguments from church or Christians-only environments to be effective in reasoned, honorable debate. Those arguments are cut to ribbons easily and thoroughly – often by nothing more profound than asking for substantiation.

How can debate said to be either fair or rational when one side is argued by dozens of people, who pose far more questions, points, and challenges than the other side? This is only too often reflected in comments such as, "You never answered"...(participant #100.)

I have participated in debates and forums wherein many Christians attempted to dispute my points. In that situation I am not "outnumbered" – I just have a lot more targets. As a famous US general once said "They have us completely surrounded – the poor b______s."

Debate rules need to be modified in the interest of fairness and rationality.

I look forward to reading the suggested rule modification.

Many ganging up on one, or a few, has long been considered to be bullying, and rightly so.

Some consider it "bullying" whenever a capable person with strong position "fights" a challenger who is less capable and whose position is weaker (or non-existent).

As someone once said regarding a debate, "He is like a punch-drunk fighter who answers the bell, takes a terrible beating, retreats to his corner bloody and battered – and thinks he is winning."

Has any rational atheist proposed equal numbers of debaters, with each side given equal numbers of posts, of equal length here? If so, where? If not, why not?

That occurs regularly in Head to Head sub-forum where only two opposing debaters can post and rules of engagement can be agreed upon from the start.

There is no love, no civility, in repeating ad nauseum, "There is no god and you cannot prove it.... (to our satisfaction), but please try. (snark)"

There is no love or civility in repeating Ad nauseam "Goddidit" or "Unbelievers will be punished after they die."

Careful reading of posts indicates to me that "Prove God" is not a primary objection to religious positions in debate. Rather the objection is to recurring unsubstantiated claims of knowledge. You avoid this admirably by not claiming knowledge about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities – BUT others may not be as wise.

The Christian equivalent to that irrational position is, "You're going to hell if you don't change (snark)." But that Christian position is not something Christians fabricated. It is fundamental to the faith, perhaps in the same way that Christianity cannot be "proven" to the satisfaction of virtually all atheists.

Agreed. There is no proof of the existence of "gods" or associated "souls" or "afterlife" or their non-existence. Therefore it is irrational to make a claim of knowledge in either direction. "I don't know" appears to be the most rational position. Many Theists stumble badly regarding that position – and assume / demand that I be or become a "god-denier."