The validity of questions in debate

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

The validity of questions in debate

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
It is not uncommon to encounter in these debates statements to the effect "You ask too many questions" or "If you disagree you should state a contrasting position"

1) Is questioning opposition claims and asking for evidence of truth and accuracy valid in debate?

2) If a debater makes or defends a claim, are those who doubt the clam required / expected to take or defend a contrasting position? ("Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't").

3) If someone claims "I know (or this book says) that bumblebees can fly 200 mph" is a doubter required / expected to accept their testimonial or take the position "No they can't."?

4) Is it valid to say "Show us that what you claim is true"?

5) Is it a valid debate technique to demonstrate that the opposition has not made their case or cannot support their position with credible evidence?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The validity of questions in debate

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Zzyzx wrote: 4) Is it valid to say "Show us that what you claim is true"?
I think this can depend heavily on what is actually being claimed to be true.

Level One: The claim that "I Believe"

Supposed a Christian makes the claim, "I believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God"

That claim is unprovable. All they can offer is their word that they believe this. In fact, in this case, anything other than accepting that their claim is true amounts to nothing more than accusing them of lying.

All they are claiming in this case is to believe something. They aren't claiming that they can demonstrate that what they believe is actually true.

However, at this point there should be no debate going on at all. What is there to debate? The fact that someone claims to believe something? Let them believe it. There is no need to debate it at all.

Level Two: The claim that "I can demonstrate that my belief is reasonable"

Supposed a Christian makes the claim, "I believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and I can show that this is a reasonable belief"

This appears to be something that can be debated to some degree. However, even this can become an extremely subjective debate. This can lead to endless arguments concerning just exactly what constitutes "reasonable". And there is a whole lot of wiggle room here for the Christian. The Christan can wiggle quite a bit concerning the Biblical account of Jesus by appealing to all manner of vague subjective interpretations of the scriptures. They can also appeal to the magical powers of God to overcome any scientific objections, etc.

Such debates are pretty much guaranteed to end with one party simply rejecting what the other party feels is "reasonable".

I think this is the tactic taken by Dr. William Craig. He can basically argue until the cows come home that he feels it's reasonable to believe in this religious texts.

Such debates will never be won or lost, at best all they can do is sway audiences who watch the debates into accepting that one side is being more reasonable than the other side.

Level Three: The claim that "I can demonstrate that what I believe is true."

Now you've got a debate where demands for evidence are not only appropriate but are a must. This debate can be decided based entirely on the evidence presented with no room for subjective opinions.

~~~~~

Now in all fairness to the Christians we have the other side of the coin.

~~~~~

Level One: The claim that "I Believe"

Supposed an Atheist makes the claim, "I believe that there is no God"

That claim is unprovable. All they can offer is their word that they believe this. In fact, in this case, anything other than accepting that their claim is true amounts to nothing more than accusing them of lying.

All they are claiming in this case is to believe something. They aren't claiming that they can demonstrate that what they believe is actually true.

However, at this point there should be no debate going on at all. What is there to debate? The fact that someone claims to believe something? Let them believe it. There is no need to debate it at all.

Level Two: The claim that "I can demonstrate that my belief is reasonable"

Supposed a Atheist makes the claim, "I believe there is no God, and I can show that this is a reasonable belief"

This appears to be something that can be debated to some degree. However, even this can become an extremely subjective debate. This can lead to endless arguments concerning just exactly what constitutes "reasonable".

Such debates are pretty much guaranteed to end with one party simply rejecting what the other party feels is "reasonable".

Such debates will never be won or lost, at best all they can do is sway audiences who watch the debates into accepting that one side is being more reasonable than the other side.

Level Three: The claim that "I can demonstrate that what I believe is true."

Now you've got a debate where demands for evidence are not only appropriate but are a must. This debate can be decided based entirely on the evidence presented with no room for subjective opinions.

So Atheists can be in the very same predicament as Christians depending on what their claims actually are.

~~~~~

Of course, all of the above examples are extremely simplistic. I'm quite sure that far more detailed debates on various specific claims can be constructed. But I think the above cases demonstrate the basic range of where they will ultimately fall.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

connermt
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:58 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The validity of questions in debate

Post #3

Post by connermt »

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
1) Is questioning opposition claims and asking for evidence of truth and accuracy valid in debate?
It depends. If one states it as factual, then there should be the means to provide support for the fact. If it's stated as an opinion or experience, then no.
2) If a debater makes or defends a claim, are those who doubt the clam required / expected to take or defend a contrasting position? ("Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't").
No one should expect anything from anyone in this instance. Expecting something oft times leads to unfulfilled expectations
3) If someone claims "I know (or this book says) that bumblebees can fly 200 mph" is a doubter required / expected to accept their testimonial or take the position "No they can't."?
One should be able to accept or reject anything they want. If someone wants to believe purple unicorns live on Pluto, they should be allowed to believe that (though people who don't believe it should also be allowed to say 'that's silly'). One of the problems on this type of site is the human connections. People can believe in anything they want. People tend to amend/change/create definitions for things to fit their belief. Those uber-zealous believers expect others to 'go along with them' and are often offended when they are forced to take their path on their own accord.
4) Is it valid to say "Show us that what you claim is true"?
Yes, but only if the one challenged says 'X' is a fact. Any personal opinion shouldn't fall into this category
5) Is it a valid debate technique to demonstrate that the opposition has not made their case or cannot support their position with credible evidence?
Validity is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe the bible validates god and their beliefs. Other don't. Who's right? The 'others' of course, but that doesn't mean the believers would agree ;)

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The validity of questions in debate

Post #4

Post by wiploc »

Zzyzx wrote: .
It is not uncommon to encounter in these debates statements to the effect "You ask too many questions" or "If you disagree you should state a contrasting position"

1) Is questioning opposition claims and asking for evidence of truth and accuracy valid in debate?

2) If a debater makes or defends a claim, are those who doubt the clam required / expected to take or defend a contrasting position? ("Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't").

3) If someone claims "I know (or this book says) that bumblebees can fly 200 mph" is a doubter required / expected to accept their testimonial or take the position "No they can't."?

4) Is it valid to say "Show us that what you claim is true"?

5) Is it a valid debate technique to demonstrate that the opposition has not made their case or cannot support their position with credible evidence?
We'd need a link to judge a specific case.

People can be pretty obnoxious with questions. But questions have their place.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The validity of questions in debate

Post #5

Post by Goose »

Zzyzx wrote: .
It is not uncommon to encounter in these debates statements to the effect "You ask too many questions" or "If you disagree you should state a contrasting position"

1) Is questioning opposition claims and asking for evidence of truth and accuracy valid in debate?

2) If a debater makes or defends a claim, are those who doubt the clam required / expected to take or defend a contrasting position? ("Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't").

3) If someone claims "I know (or this book says) that bumblebees can fly 200 mph" is a doubter required / expected to accept their testimonial or take the position "No they can't."?

4) Is it valid to say "Show us that what you claim is true"?

5) Is it a valid debate technique to demonstrate that the opposition has not made their case or cannot support their position with credible evidence?
I don't think the issue is with questions themselves. Questions can be helpful. For instance they can help us clarify an opponent's position so we don't misrepresent it. Or they can add rhetorical value in making a point.

The issue is when questions are used as...
  • 1. Arguments.
    2. A tactic to bury one's opponent in rabbit trails. Then declaring one's opponent has avoided all the questions because the opponent can't answer them.
An example of (1) could be something like:
A: I present argument (i) in support of the truth of proposition X.
B: Isn't it possible that X is false?

B's question isn't a counter argument against A's argument. It's just a question that has no value since it's understood that X could be false, which is why it is being debated in the first place.

An example of (2) could be something like:
A: I present argument (i) in support of the truth of proposition X.
B: Is (i) all you have? Why is (i) all you have? Is (i) enough? Why is (i) enough? Isn't it possible that X is false? How do we know (i) is true? How do we know X is true? How do we know any argument is true? How do we know truth? Are there other arguments other than (i)? What aren't there arguments other than (i)? Why should we accept your opinion? What are your credentials? What scholars agree with your opinion? What their credentials? Why is the sky blue?

Post Reply