Debating for beginners (and others)

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
All of us were beginners at some point. Some have gotten past the most obvious stumbling blocks; others have become frustrated and left; still others seem unable to learn how to be effective in debate – but keep slugging away anyway, being foolish (and entertaining others).

Here are a few things I have learned that might be useful to others.

1. BE HONEST. If your position is valid there is nothing to be gained by dishonesty or dishonor (or disreputable debate tactics). If your position is invalid you may think a con-job will help but it will not do so in the long run – and you will likely join the ranks of those who leave the forum in disgrace after being exposed.

2. Learn to use forum functions such as "quote" and "edit". A tutorial is available in "Members Only" sub-forum in a thread entitled " how to quote and refer to the text to which I am responding"

3. Use spell-check. Spelling errors, while not of major importance, convey an impression or attitude of sloppiness and indifference toward accuracy (which is often foretelling). I personally prefer to compose posts in a Word document rather than in forum reply boxes. That avoids the possibility of Internet or forum glitches "losing" my work, and it makes spell-check convenient (actually ongoing "as you type" as my machine is configured).

4. Learn the "rules of logic" and do NOT make obvious blunders such as "circular reasoning", non-sequiturs , false or faulty analogies, appealing to emotions, incomplete evidence, unsupported assertion, prejudices or stereotypes, argument of popularity, etc. An excellent source or starting point is http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html

5. Do NOT use questionable debate tactics such as ad hominems, ducking questions, straw man arguments, feigned ignorance, feigned knowledge, special pleading, etc. Some of these are also errors in logic. They identify an argument as questionable, weak and/or defective.

6. DEBATE do not preach (this applies to any "ism"). In debate ideas are challenged, supported, defended, countered, and critiqued. Critical examination and comment is expected. No one has any right to claim absolute truth or understanding. Your point of view is NOT superior by virtue of your convictions.

7. Learn about the topic. Even if you feel rather competent in the area of discussion it pays to do some research. Internet search engines are a powerful tool for anyone who learns to use them effectively and efficiently. You might even accidentally learn something.

8. Learn about opposition debaters. A great deal of information is readily available about some members. Some are chosen by Admin as subjects for "Member Spotlight" in General Chat. Other information is available in the person's previous posts and ongoing debates. CHECK and ASK. What you don't know WILL hurt you.

9. Do NOT assume that you are right or that you are the better debater. You may discover that you are wrong on both counts. Overestimating yourself and your position while underestimating opposition people and positions is a recipe for disaster. People who make that mistake frequently are usually known as has-beens – no longer active.

10. If you are a Theist do not assume that your beliefs or worship practices make you superior in any way. That may seem true in church but it is decidedly not true in debate. You occupy no moral high ground. You are not "better" than others who worship different gods in different ways – or those who worship no gods – REGARDLESS of what your preacher may have told you.

11. If you are a Theist learn the meaning of the terms "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Anti-Theist", "Non-Christian", "Anti-Christian", "Non-Theist", and "Ignostic". Notice that some members positing here are not inclined to believe in gods but are not particularly opposed. Some oppose specific practices or policies of organized religion. Some are adamantly opposed to all forms of god worship. Learn the difference as applied to the people you attempt to debate. It DOES make a difference.

12. If you are a theist do NOT assume that you know more about religious literature and dogma than your opponents. Many Non-Theistic members are much better informed about the bible and Christianity than any Christians I have debated.

13. If you are a Non-Theist do not assume that Theists are "all alike" and "all stupid" (or variations thereof). There are some very intelligent and capable theistic members who are more than able to "hand you your head". Many of the most respected theistic members are NOT "traditionalists" who subscribe to mainline organized religious sects. Learn the interesting variations that are represented in "thinking theism".

14. If you are a Non-Theist do not assume that theism is represented by Fanatical Fundamentalists (or "Conservatives" or "Real Christians") who seem overly vocal in debate forums. It is suggested that liberal or moderate Christians are not motivated to attempt to promote or defend their beliefs in Internet debate while the more fanatical seem compelled to do so.

15. It is NOT wise to assume that you know an opponent's position. ASK. Unless you are quite well informed about your opponent, you have no idea who you are talking to. Several members are Ex-Christians, some are Ex-Christian Ministers, some are attorneys, teachers, and construction superintendents. At least one is a retired professor of Comparative Religion. Many are seasoned debaters.

16. Do not make statements that you cannot support. This is debate – not preaching. You WILL be challenged. Be prepared to cite evidence to support what you say. If you cannot defend a statement WITHDRAW it gracefully.

17. Read EXACTLY what a person says before trying to rebut or respond. Do not "read into" what they say and do not assume that they mean what you think at first glance. It is particularly important to read carefully anything that touches "tender places" in your psyche or your belief system.

18. Remember that ALL you have in Internet debate is CREDIBILITY which is based upon 1) Respect from fellow debaters, 2) Consistency of position, 3) Accuracy of statements, and 4) Skill in presenting ideas and answering challenges.

19. Your arguments, no matter how powerful, are unlikely to make instant changes in anyone's position (though that can happen with a frequency that approaches winning a lottery). Instead, presenting consistent ideas in reasoned and effective ways is likely to change attitudes (if not positions) over time.

20. Learn from fellow debaters. Learn techniques of debate as well as learning about ideas being discussed. You don't know it all (no matter what you may think).

21. Leave your emotions out of the debate. Becoming emotional reduces one's ability to accurately assess the "terrain" and to reply to "moves" by other parties to the discussion. Some debaters deliberately provoke emotional response by "pushing buttons" to encourage their opposition to become emotional or irrational. Keeping a foot out of that trap is just as important as avoiding one's own "trap" of "leading with your emotions" (and stumbling over hurdles placed by the opposition).

22. Answer legitimate questions. You WILL encounter questions and challenges that are uncomfortable or difficult to address. It may seem appealing to take the weak way out and simply duck and dodge or disappear from the discussion; however, doing so is transparent. Your credibility will suffer.

23. Acknowledge mistakes and withdraw incorrect or inappropriate statements. You are not infallible. Everyone else knows you are not – don't be the only one unaware.

24. Nothing goes unnoticed. This is true in life as well as in debate. What one might think they snuck by unobserved quite often "comes back around and slaps them in the head". Even if no one else mentions things YOU know, and the negative effects on self-image are not worth the gain.

25. Be aware that many people visit this forum every day and that threads are available indefinitely. Many threads are visited hundreds or thousands of times. Your words have the potential to reach those people – with either positive or negative effect (or none at all). It is not wise to assume that readers are stupid or easily influenced.

26. What you write may be far more important to people OTHER than the one(s) to whom you address comments. What is said in threads IS read and considered by readers / visitors – not just debaters. Many read without posting.

27. Don't whine or expect special treatment. Do not claim to be disfavored by moderators. This forum is extremely fairly moderated. It is owned and administered by a Christian and moderated by an even mix of theists and non-theists. The playing field is as level as one is likely to find. DO NOT ARGUE with moderators in threads. If you have any comments to them send a PM.

28. Don't make excuses. If your arguments don't hold water and if you are not respected by fellow debaters look for holes in your presentation and your attitude – not defects in fellow members (or planetary alignment).

29. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

30. Feel free to ignore all of the above. We need a few examples of "Mr. Before".
.
Non-Theist

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

Beto

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #41

Post by Beto »

Skyler wrote:
Beto wrote:You failed to demonstrate they are technically incorrect.
I demonstrated. You denounced my demonstration as "silly" without providing your reasoning behind that conclusion.
Given the several posts I wrote on this "issue", you must be confusing me for someone else.

User avatar
Skyler
Sage
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:41 am

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #42

Post by Skyler »

Beto wrote:
Skyler wrote:
Beto wrote:You failed to demonstrate they are technically incorrect.
I demonstrated. You denounced my demonstration as "silly" without providing your reasoning behind that conclusion.
Given the several posts I wrote on this "issue", you must be confusing me for someone else.
You're right, sorry, it was Zzyzx that called the discussion "silly".

Your argument was that one cannot claim absolute truth in debate. As the rules are outside of the debate, they can claim absolute truth. The problem with this, as I mentioned, is that this sets up the rules as absolute truth without possibility of challenge. McCulloch himself said that this was not the case, that the rules can be debated in the proper venue. Therefore, the rules themselves cannot make claims to absolute truth either.

Beto

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #43

Post by Beto »

Skyler wrote:Your argument was that one cannot claim absolute truth in debate.
No, that was Zz's claim, and I argued it's supported by the definition of "debate".
Skyler wrote:As the rules are outside of the debate, they can claim absolute truth.
The rules do not go against the definition. The rules are NOT a claim of absolute truth. They must, and do conform to the definition of "debate".
Skyler wrote:The problem with this, as I mentioned, is that this sets up the rules as absolute truth without possibility of challenge. McCulloch himself said that this was not the case, that the rules can be debated in the proper venue.
They already were. As far as the people that manage the forum, it seems your arguments were insufficient. But as you yourself stated, at this point we can let the readers decide for themselves.

cnorman18

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #44

Post by cnorman18 »

Rules and absolute truths are two different things; but within the context of the activity that the rules cover, rules ARE absolute. That's why they call them "rules."

In baseball, a fair fly ball that is caught by an opposing fielder results in the batter's being declared "out." Is that an absolute truth?

In baseball, you'd better believe it is. You can ignore or debate that rule if you like, but if you don't follow it, you aren't playing baseball any more. You're doing something else.

In the same way, you can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #45

Post by McCulloch »

cnorman18 wrote:Rules and absolute truths are two different things; but within the context of the activity that the rules cover, rules ARE absolute. That's why they call them "rules."

In baseball, a fair fly ball that is caught by an opposing fielder results in the batter's being declared "out." Is that an absolute truth?

In baseball, you'd better believe it is. You can ignore or debate that rule if you like, but if you don't follow it, you aren't playing baseball any more. You're doing something else.

In the same way, you can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.
But how is it that you determine which set of rules apply? In American football, there are four downs, while in Canadian football, there are only three, in association football, the concept is meaningless.

In the same way, is there an authoritative listing of the rules of debate? Can you say that if I don't follow a particular set of debating rules, I am not debating?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

cnorman18

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #46

Post by cnorman18 »

McCulloch wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:Rules and absolute truths are two different things; but within the context of the activity that the rules cover, rules ARE absolute. That's why they call them "rules."

In baseball, a fair fly ball that is caught by an opposing fielder results in the batter's being declared "out." Is that an absolute truth?

In baseball, you'd better believe it is. You can ignore or debate that rule if you like, but if you don't follow it, you aren't playing baseball any more. You're doing something else.

In the same way, you can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.
But how is it that you determine which set of rules apply? In American football, there are four downs, while in Canadian football, there are only three, in association football, the concept is meaningless.

In the same way, is there an authoritative listing of the rules of debate? Can you say that if I don't follow a particular set of debating rules, I am not debating?
(Et tu, McCulloch?)

I would say that the rules are determined by where one is playing. In Australia, one plays by Australian rules. On DC&R, one debates by the rules posted here, and unless and until they are changed, they are absolute on this forum.

Am I the only one who is finding this whole discussion a bit silly? Does anyone really confuse forum rules with absolute truths claimed in the context of debate?

User avatar
Skyler
Sage
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:41 am

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #47

Post by Skyler »

cnorman18 wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:Rules and absolute truths are two different things; but within the context of the activity that the rules cover, rules ARE absolute. That's why they call them "rules."

In baseball, a fair fly ball that is caught by an opposing fielder results in the batter's being declared "out." Is that an absolute truth?

In baseball, you'd better believe it is. You can ignore or debate that rule if you like, but if you don't follow it, you aren't playing baseball any more. You're doing something else.

In the same way, you can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.
But how is it that you determine which set of rules apply? In American football, there are four downs, while in Canadian football, there are only three, in association football, the concept is meaningless.

In the same way, is there an authoritative listing of the rules of debate? Can you say that if I don't follow a particular set of debating rules, I am not debating?
(Et tu, McCulloch?)

I would say that the rules are determined by where one is playing. In Australia, one plays by Australian rules. On DC&R, one debates by the rules posted here, and unless and until they are changed, they are absolute on this forum.

Am I the only one who is finding this whole discussion a bit silly? Does anyone really confuse forum rules with absolute truths claimed in the context of debate?
^^That's my point. To avoid this kind of confusion in the future, it would be better to make a minor alteration to Zzyzx's list.

Does it really make that big of a difference otherwise?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #48

Post by McCulloch »

cnorman18 wrote:You can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.
McCulloch wrote:But how is it that you determine which set of rules apply? [...] In the same way, is there an authoritative listing of the rules of debate? Can you say that if I don't follow a particular set of debating rules, I am not debating?
cnorman18 wrote:(Et tu, McCulloch?)
Yup, me tu.
cnorman18 wrote:On DC&R, one debates by the rules posted here, and unless and until they are changed, they are absolute on this forum.
But that isn't to say that someone following other rules of debate is not really debating, nor does it say that following the rules here ensure that the participants are actually debating.
cnorman18 wrote:Am I the only one who is finding this whole discussion a bit silly? Does anyone really confuse forum rules with absolute truths claimed in the context of debate?
This discussion is increasingly having the tone of a debate. Mia cupla. Originally this was a list of a few things Zzyzx, 2007 Rookie of the Year, 2008 Best Debater, has learned that might be useful to others. Perhaps we should have a debate about what constitutes debate in the Philosophy forum.

Monty Python Argument (You Tube)
Monty Python Argument (Text) wrote:M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

cnorman18

Re: Debating for beginners (and others)

Post #49

Post by cnorman18 »

McCulloch wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:You can question the rules of debate if you like, but if you don't follow them, you aren't debating.
McCulloch wrote:But how is it that you determine which set of rules apply? [...] In the same way, is there an authoritative listing of the rules of debate? Can you say that if I don't follow a particular set of debating rules, I am not debating?
cnorman18 wrote:(Et tu, McCulloch?)
Yup, me tu.
cnorman18 wrote:On DC&R, one debates by the rules posted here, and unless and until they are changed, they are absolute on this forum.
But that isn't to say that someone following other rules of debate is not really debating, nor does it say that following the rules here ensure that the participants are actually debating.
cnorman18 wrote:Am I the only one who is finding this whole discussion a bit silly? Does anyone really confuse forum rules with absolute truths claimed in the context of debate?
This discussion is increasingly having the tone of a debate. Mia cupla. Originally this was a list of a few things Zzyzx, 2007 Rookie of the Year, 2008 Best Debater, has learned that might be useful to others. Perhaps we should have a debate about what constitutes debate in the Philosophy forum.

Monty Python Argument (You Tube)
Monty Python Argument (Text) wrote:M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
I'm telling you, this parrot is dead. It's a dead parrot. It isn't breathing. It's a dead bird.

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Post #50

Post by FinalEnigma »

That walk isn't particularly silly, is it?
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

Post Reply