Can we debate respectfully?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've listened to this debate several times over the years, it was broadcast by the BBC on radio a great many years ago.

Its a debate on the existence of God between two very respected intellectuals, Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston. Each of these men wrote a comprehensive history of philosophy and were well versed in philosophy, logic, history and so on, they were well matched.

What is striking is that neither party ever gets personal, they focus entirely on their opponents arguments, no petty insinuating, snide remarks or disparaging words.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell

If you prefer to skip the introductions and go right to the debate use this link.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - No Intro

So the question - why do so many debates in the Science and Religion area often end up getting personal and stray away from the pure hard logic of the topic itself?

[Jose Fly]

Recently, a creationist and I were engaging in a debate here and the creationist cited and quoted a scientific paper. The problem was, the "quote" he posted wasn't actually in the paper and was rather different than what the authors actually wrote.

What's the respectful way to respond to that sort of thing?

[AgnosticBoy]

Do not accuse Christians of dishonest tactics or lying. Point out the fallacy of their argument without personal accusations.

This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post. Why is it not against the rules to lie and be dishonest, but it is against the rules to point out when someone does it? One could take that as an indication that Christians are okay with lying and dishonesty, as long as no one calls them on it.

Seems a bit out of whack to me.

If by lying, you mean giving inaccurate information, then that is already covered under the rules of making an unsupported claim.

If it involves using dishonest tactics, then that's harder to catch and it can be interpreted differently.

[Jose Fly]

Do not accuse Christians of dishonest tactics or lying. Point out the fallacy of their argument without personal accusations.

This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post. Why is it not against the rules to lie and be dishonest, but it is against the rules to point out when someone does it? One could take that as an indication that Christians are okay with lying and dishonesty, as long as no one calls them on it.

Seems a bit out of whack to me.

If by lying, you mean giving inaccurate information, then that is already covered under the rules of making an unsupported claim.

I mean putting a statement in quotes, when in reality that statement not only doesn't appear in the paper, but is actually very different than what the paper actually says. So it's not really a question of inaccuracy as much as it is of flat out dishonesty.

If it involves using dishonest tactics, then that's harder to catch and it can be interpreted differently.

In cases like I described, I don't see how. If I post something like "AgnosticBoy said 'The earth is flat'", but you never said it, that's not a matter of interpretation.

Yet according to the forum's rules, it's just fine for me to do that but if you say I've been dishonest in misrepresenting you, the site managers will take action against you.

Again, that seems out of whack to me.

[otseng]

Do not accuse Christians of dishonest tactics or lying. Point out the fallacy of their argument without personal accusations.

This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post. Why is it not against the rules to lie and be dishonest, but it is against the rules to point out when someone does it? One could take that as an indication that Christians are okay with lying and dishonesty, as long as no one calls them on it.

Seems a bit out of whack to me.

You have to give people the benefit of the doubt - they might've mistakenly quoted the wrong source, pressed Control-C at the wrong place, or honestly not known something, or a host of other possible reasons. Of course, they could also be intentionally lying, but it would be hard to prove.

Nobody is "OK" with lying and dishonesty here. But, what we are not OK with here is incivility of any kind. The primary purpose of this forum is not to have formal debates with high academic standards. The primary purpose of this forum however is civility. And that is what will be cracked down on.

[Jose Fly]

You have to give people the benefit of the doubt - they might've mistakenly quoted the wrong source, pressed Control-C at the wrong place, or honestly not known something, or a host of other possible reasons. Of course, they could also be intentionally lying, but it would be hard to prove.

Aren't those alternative disproven when, after the quote has been shown to be inaccurate or made up, the person who did it ignores that and refuses to correct it?

Nobody is "OK" with lying and dishonesty here. But, what we are not OK with here is incivility of any kind. The primary purpose of this forum is not to have formal debates with high academic standards. The primary purpose of this forum however is civility. And that is what will be cracked down on.

Seems like a rather large loophole to me...one a dishonest person can exploit rather easily. Just come in, behave dishonestly, then report anyone who points it out.

[otseng]

Aren't those alternative disproven when, after the quote has been shown to be inaccurate or made up, the person who did it ignores that and refuses to correct it?

Ideally people should fess up to their mistakes, but the forum is not in the business of enforcing people to debate correctly.

Nobody is "OK" with lying and dishonesty here. But, what we are not OK with here is incivility of any kind. The primary purpose of this forum is not to have formal debates with high academic standards. The primary purpose of this forum however is civility. And that is what will be cracked down on.

Seems like a rather large loophole to me...one a dishonest person can exploit rather easily. Just come in, behave dishonestly, then report anyone who points it out.

Just trying to get people to be civil is hard enough. If anyone wants to volunteer to moderate and handle all the reports of bad argumentation, I can create a spot.

[Jose Fly]

Ideally people should fess up to their mistakes, but the forum is not in the business of enforcing people to debate correctly.

Or honestly, right?

Just trying to get people to be civil is hard enough. If anyone wants to volunteer to moderate and handle all the reports of bad argumentation, I can create a spot.

I appreciate y'all's work, but I don't see this as an issue of staffing. I used to belong to a science debate forum that was moderated by a single person, and he was extremely effective at weeding out dishonesty. Instead, this seems to be a matter of priorities, which are reflected in the rules. As you've made clear, the overriding priority here is civility.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and concerns.

[AgnosticBoy]

If it involves using dishonest tactics, then that's harder to catch and it can be interpreted differently.

In cases like I described, I don't see how. If I post something like "AgnosticBoy said 'The earth is flat'", but you never said it, that's not a matter of interpretation.

Yet according to the forum's rules, it's just fine for me to do that but if you say I've been dishonest in misrepresenting you, the site managers will take action against you.

Again, that seems out of whack to me.

If it's as easy as the example that you cited, then I'd act on it. But if it is debatable or not clear cut, then I would lean towards not intervening.

And the brunt of the work showing that a claim is unsupported should be on the member reporting it. I've had members report unsupported claims, but left me little to no helpful details and I had to go hunting for the posts myself to figure out where the issue really was.

If you report it, then I think the moderators would expect to see the unsupported claim, where you shot it down, and the member continuing to make the same unsupported claim. But again, it helps when it's a clear cut and simple case.

[Jose Fly]

If it's as easy as the example that you cited, then I'd act on it. But if it is debatable or not clear cut, then I would lean towards not intervening.

Agreed.

And the brunt of the work showing that a claim is unsupported should be on the member reporting it. I've had members report unsupported claims, but left me little to no helpful details and I had to go hunting for the posts myself to figure out where the issue really was.

If you report it, then I think the moderators would expect to see the unsupported claim, where you shot it down, and the member continuing to make the same unsupported claim.

Well, "unsupported claims" aren't really what I'm talking about. Heck, posts with unsupported claims are the norm in these sorts of science v religion forums.

But as otseng explained, the overarching goal here is for people to be polite to each other. I freely admit that that's difficult for me when I see repeated, blatant dishonesty, but....I'll do my best.

[JoeyKnothead]

"This book here of right and good morality y'all need to live by says to stone them faggots, stome them adulterers, and nonbelievers ain't em but a bunch of fools!

Why are you being mean to me?"

It's hypocritical as heck to promote the bible as virtuous morality, then cry when you get called out on bigotry in the name of a god ya can't even shows exists to share your hatreds.