Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 159:

The font and I are enjoying a relationship of bliss free from fontist persecution and religious doctrine.

I feel confident the observer of minimum intelligence can see that not wanting to address another's argument simply because they find a font unacceptable is just another in a long line of excuses for some theists to avoid responsibility for their claims / arguments.

A font? What next, incorrect punctuation and grammar?

I'm relieved The Mad Haranguer didn't have to deal with reading our late friend Joer's posts.

Oh, to be bold and blue,
Emboldened font written anew,
Of evidence supporting a claim true,
Or never mentioned in debate with you.

!

[Crazy Ivan]

Jester, for the love of god (ironic, innit?), what is a theistic claim offered as, if not a truthful claim? How is arguing that the arguments in favor of an allegedly truthful claim are fallacious NOT arguing AGAINST the claim as being truthful? How is arguing for and AGAINST a proposition NOT debate? You may wish to define "against" as "opposite" or "directly opposite", I may wish to define it as "competing" or "in opposition to", whatever... But you are NOT entitled to say it isn't debate as everyone else is concerned.

-edit: And it should be well understood that "proposition" just means "something offered for consideration or acceptance", which does not necessitate an actual question. Arguing against the claims used to support an answer to a question is debating, even if the question itself isn't being answered in the process.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

Moderator Comment

No. You said: "I will not offer respect for claimants who refuse to, or are unwilling to support their claims, nor will I respect a claim I seek to challenge." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

If this is your position, then don't waste your time writing messages like this. It is neither civil nor does it contribute to debate.
Consider yourself warned: continuing to make posts like this will get you placed on probation.

Sorry, Jester. In my mind "civil" also means being "respectful." Even the FSM fails on that account.

I put him on my ignore list.

While the apology is appreciated, again, please do not respond to moderator actions in a thread.


Also, feel free to place people on ignore, but there is not need to comment on that in the thread.

[Flail]

Jester, for the love of god (ironic, innit?), what is a theistic claim offered as, if not a truthful claim? How is arguing that the arguments in favor of an allegedly truthful claim are fallacious NOT arguing AGAINST the claim as being truthful? How is arguing for and AGAINST a proposition NOT debate? You may wish to define "against" as "opposite" or "directly opposite", I may wish to define it as "competing" or "in opposition to", whatever... But you are NOT entitled to say it isn't debate as everyone else is concerned.

-edit: And it should be well understood that "proposition" just means "something offered for consideration or acceptance", which does not necessitate an actual question. Arguing against the claims used to support an answer to a question is debating, even if the question itself isn't being answered in the process.

Very well stated. IMO, it is the essence of poor debating to attempt to define and regulate how others should couch their responses to debate claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 164:

Jester, for the love of god (ironic, innit?), what is a theistic claim offered as, if not a truthful claim? How is arguing that the arguments in favor of an allegedly truthful claim are fallacious NOT arguing AGAINST the claim as being truthful? How is arguing for and AGAINST a proposition NOT debate? You may wish to define "against" as "opposite" or "directly opposite", I may wish to define it as "competing" or "in opposition to", whatever... But you are NOT entitled to say it isn't debate as everyone else is concerned.
-edit: And it should be well understood that "proposition" just means "something offered for consideration or acceptance", which does not necessitate an actual question. Arguing against the claims used to support an answer to a question is debating, even if the question itself isn't being answered in the process.

Very well stated. IMO, it is the essence of poor debating to attempt to define and regulate how others should couch their responses to debate claims.

'Concuration'.

I agree Jester has a valid idea that alternative explanations can help in determining the truthfulness of claims, or how such may address the "big picture". I still contend the issue of whether a given claim is accurate can be debated solely on its merits, in the absence of any alternative explanation, and that such can and does constitute "good debate" (realizing the subjective "good").

[Flail]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

I agree Jester has a valid idea that alternative explanations can help in determining the truthfulness of claims, or how such may address the "big picture". I still contend the issue of whether a given claim is accurate can be debated solely on its merits, in the absence of any alternative explanation, and that such can and does constitute "good debate" (realizing the subjective "good").

Indeed Jester makes well reasoned points, as Jester typically does, although I often disagree. Alternative claims and how or whether they are advanced however, should be the province of the debate claim challenger, not the claimant. Deciding not to advance an alternative claim or proposition is not ipso facto bad debate technique as Jester contends, IMO.

[Crazy Ivan]

Deciding not to advance an alternative claim or proposition is not ipso facto bad debate technique as Jester contends, IMO.

The contention has been repeatedly that it does not constitute debate at all, not that it's just "bad". This contention is refuted by simple definition of terms under Merriam-Webster, and I would personally appreciate recognition from Jester that it IS debate, regardless of how he personally feels about it. Saying it isn't is saying none of us who choose to commit simply to arguing for the logical invalidity of certain theistic claims, leaving the conclusions and alternatives to others who choose to commit to it, don't belong in this forum because it's a debate forum.

[dgruber]

Of course challenging claims should occur, but for debate, there should be a counter claim, or alternative in place. Definitions should be sorted out prior to debate in order to make sure all are on the same page and then debate should begin. For example: (Please remember this is just an example, not meant to put words in anyone's mouth)

Party A: God Exists (CLAIM)
Party B: Which god?
Party A: The god as described in the New Testament
Party B: I will argue that it is not possible to know whether the god of the New Testament exists or not. (Counter Claim)
Party A: Agreed and I will argue that it is possible to know more likely than not that this god exists.

From this point debate begins. Points are stated from both sides and debate ensues. Hopefully some conclusion is reached but that doesn't always happen. It is my opinion that all debate should happen in this way. If it does not then it is simply a discussion.

[Goat]

Of course challenging claims should occur, but for debate, there should be a counter claim, or alternative in place. Definitions should be sorted out prior to debate in order to make sure all are on the same page and then debate should begin. For example: (Please remember this is just an example, not meant to put words in anyone's mouth)

Party A: God Exists (CLAIM)
Party B: Which god?
Party A: The god as described in the New Testament
Party B: I will argue that it is not possible to know whether the god of the New Testament exists or not. (Counter Claim)
Party A: Agreed and I will argue that it is possible to know more likely than not that this god exists.

From this point debate begins. Points are stated from both sides and debate ensues. Hopefully some conclusion is reached but that doesn't always happen. It is my opinion that all debate should happen in this way. If it does not then it is simply a discussion.

that is one structure, yes.. but that is not all there is.

There is 'Claim.. blah blah blah.' Can you provide evidence of that claim??

No, then why should we believe that claim?

[Zzyzx]

.
In my opinion, the "You must provide an alternative claim" "argument" in debate is nothing more than an attempt by the weaker side (one argued with defective, deficient, insufficient evidence) to coerce their opponents into taking a position they do not take.

If a person claims in debate to know how to make a "100 mpg carburetor", anyone who is curious about the claim or perhaps doubtful, is NOT expected or required to say, "Oh no you don't" or "That is not possible". Instead, a very rational response is "show me". If the claimant produces working drawings or a prototype, evaluation of the claim can begin. If all they produce is excuses for the absence of evidence, they forfeit credibility (except with the naive and gullible).

Exactly the same holds true for claims about "gods".