It wasn't that long ago that I was being labelled a Christian, simply because i do not ordinarily dis 'Christians'.
I do think though that it becomes confusing for the reader when members take on labels which don't actually describe the position that they most often argue from, and calling oneself a "Christian" whilst also attacking the generic doctrines of Christendom is a tactic which is questionable. Tactics don't arise from rule-sets. They arise from personalities, and some rule-sets favor questionable personalities.
Perhaps that is the reason Christianity has taken the path it has.
If someone has chosen confusing contradictory labels for themselves as a tactic of debate, then their approach is questionable. How they respond to the questions reveals their character, but since members
characters are considered too 'holy' to question in a debate setting (unless they are the GOD of the OT or other disliked non members of the forum) 'Attack their debate points, not their character.'
Mind you, some of the 'debate points' are caricature.
It's a slippery slope.
Often the BEST debater - (and the award goes toooooo.....) is regarded as the one who can take up any position and argue successfully for that position - and that is something both politicians and lawyers are renowned for and it is considered to be a legitimate skill. Often this is confused with being liars!!
So whomever is the BEST debater on this forum will most likely fit the profile of someone who is able to slip from one costume to the other with relative ease and a dexterity which could only derive from years of honing ones debating skills for the purpose of being a consistent WINNER!
As it stands, for the most part the actual
person in online forums is obscured behind all manner of titles, some of these are even a contradiction to the positions they most often identify with.
So I think that it would be very difficult to
actually debate their actual character, because of this obscurity. What is often being debated is the falseness of the persona rather than the actual personality behind the persona, who remains obscure.
In that, one is simply debating the character of the sock-puppet. so the rules are protecting the sock-puppets character rather than the actual personality hiding behind the sock-puppet.
The confusion only arises when the sock-puppet is given permission to speak on behalf of the character of the puppeteer, (which of course is another way of saying that the puppeteer uses his/her sock-puppet screen name and group identifications for that purpose ) effectively making it hard to pin the person down as to their true position - and some debating techniques are simply not designed to represent truthfulness.
Not that i am saying that one ought not practice debating from an opposite position to one's real one as a means of gaining some insight into how opposition think, but generally this need always be done openly - as in - one lets the reader know that this is what is going on in that particular circumstance.
The changing of horses in mid stream may indeed be a winning tactic of debate where the rules of debate allow for it, but it can never be an honest one.
Not that the world we live in expects individuals to win through honesty - the lines are blurred sufficiently through the medium of social law allowing for dishonesty to make winners of individuals as well, and we all know what kind of a world that has produced for every society which practices them.
And certainly fingers can indeed be pointed at Christendom and the Abrahamic religions in general for employing such practices, just as certainly as they can be pointed at other institutions outside of Christendom.
The idea of truthfulness is to be consistent with one's criticisms - point the finger where the problems are but don't turn a blind eye to 'other' just because one's favorite punching bag is "Christian". Lift ones gaze to identify the full extent of the problem and refrain from hypocrisy...that may not be great debating advice, but it is still worthy of great and honest consideration.
."
