I'd love some discussion on how we might do better at debate, both in general and in addressing the specific issues that seem to occur frequently on the site.
I'll put my thoughts in the first response. Please add as you see fit.
How Can we be Better Debaters?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Jester
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
How Can we be Better Debaters?
Post #1We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
-
Jester
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4214
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: How Can we be Better Debaters?
Post #2Of course, it cannot be said often enough that we need to be more civil.
Beyond that...
1. Don't Argue Definitions
I know that it can be irritating when non-believers try to tell us how words like "faith" should be defined. I've never seen a tangent on that do anything but halt progress.
I'd suggest that we should accept the definition, then decide if the word applies (i.e. "in that case, I don't claim to have faith in Christianity, but simply to believe that it is true").
2. Admit it When we are Wrong
Nothing gains a debater credibility like being willing to apologize and retract a point.
3. Request an Alternative
In debate, it is far easier to tear an idea down than it is to defend one. This opens the door for an unfair advantage to those who are interested in issuing challenges without supporting an alternative position.
In general, I find that the best response is taking the position that Christianity is the best explanation for life as it is lived. Once understood, this forces an alternative to be named, and therefore balances the scales.
The only difficulty is that the statement is often ignored, and is simply met with an attack on Christianity. It requires a great deal of patience to keep (politely) pointing out that no better alternative has yet been defended.
Beyond that...
1. Don't Argue Definitions
I know that it can be irritating when non-believers try to tell us how words like "faith" should be defined. I've never seen a tangent on that do anything but halt progress.
I'd suggest that we should accept the definition, then decide if the word applies (i.e. "in that case, I don't claim to have faith in Christianity, but simply to believe that it is true").
2. Admit it When we are Wrong
Nothing gains a debater credibility like being willing to apologize and retract a point.
3. Request an Alternative
In debate, it is far easier to tear an idea down than it is to defend one. This opens the door for an unfair advantage to those who are interested in issuing challenges without supporting an alternative position.
In general, I find that the best response is taking the position that Christianity is the best explanation for life as it is lived. Once understood, this forces an alternative to be named, and therefore balances the scales.
The only difficulty is that the statement is often ignored, and is simply met with an attack on Christianity. It requires a great deal of patience to keep (politely) pointing out that no better alternative has yet been defended.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
Post #3
Good points Jester. It's difficult to have to stop and find acceptable references to support what we believe and want to reflect on in a debate. We know in our hearts what we want to say, but to find it, especially sources outside of the bible to support biblical concepts is more difficult without it being rejected out of hand as merely one persons opinion.
We don't do well when our reference points or basis for our beliefs are rejected. That is rejecting us and our beliefs as irrelevant on the topic at hand.
We don't do well when our reference points or basis for our beliefs are rejected. That is rejecting us and our beliefs as irrelevant on the topic at hand.
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #4
I'd suggest that the best way, paradoxically, is to drop an apologetic agenda. If it's all about "taste and see" and "by our love" and the work of the Spirit anyway, then it seems to me that and open, honest, agenda-free inquiry into meaning is the best place to start. When a discussion is tainted by an apologetic agenda, it undermines itself. But an open discussion creates the preconditions for insight, awareness, and a-ha.
This thread seems to suggest that we need to win debate. I find that sad. Why not have good discussion and let things fall where they may? If honesty and faith are central, then perhaps an athiest becomes a believer, perhaps a christian becomes a buddhist, perhaps a fundamentalist becomes a mainstreamer. It's all good. God doesn't care IMO about doctrines, and christ is a mindset, a state of consciousness.
When you cross the river, burn the boat. Often our small ideas about God go with it.
This thread seems to suggest that we need to win debate. I find that sad. Why not have good discussion and let things fall where they may? If honesty and faith are central, then perhaps an athiest becomes a believer, perhaps a christian becomes a buddhist, perhaps a fundamentalist becomes a mainstreamer. It's all good. God doesn't care IMO about doctrines, and christ is a mindset, a state of consciousness.
When you cross the river, burn the boat. Often our small ideas about God go with it.
Post #5
Agreed. But as one who has been accused of having just such an agenda, I wonder if we shouldn't try to define what we mean by our use of that term. To me, an "apologetic agenda" means that the purpose is to convert others to Christianity, and that is far from my own purpose. I try to learn and sharpen my own thinking, and (where possible) help clear away common misconceptions about Christian belief and teaching.Slopeshoulder wrote:...open, honest, agenda-free inquiry into meaning is the best place to start. When a discussion is tainted by an apologetic agenda, it undermines itself. But an open discussion creates the preconditions for insight, awareness, and a-ha...
I have often expressed the same thought--why all the emphasis on "winning" a debate? Debating may help sharpen our debating skills, but by itself debating skill is no necessary indicator of the truth of one's position.Slopeshoulder wrote:...This thread seems to suggest that we need to win debate. I find that sad. Why not have good discussion and let things fall where they may?...
BTW, my point with the Non-theist Fallacies thread is not to "win" debates, but rather to help us avoid wasting time responding with the same answers to the same fallacies that keep being put forward by non-theists.
Post #6
Slopeshoulder wrote:I'd suggest that the best way, paradoxically, is to drop an apologetic agenda. If it's all about "taste and see" and "by our love" and the work of the Spirit anyway, then it seems to me that and open, honest, agenda-free inquiry into meaning is the best place to start. When a discussion is tainted by an apologetic agenda, it undermines itself. But an open discussion creates the preconditions for insight, awareness, and a-ha.
This thread seems to suggest that we need to win debate. I find that sad. Why not have good discussion and let things fall where they may? If honesty and faith are central, then perhaps an athiest becomes a believer, perhaps a christian becomes a buddhist, perhaps a fundamentalist becomes a mainstreamer. It's all good. God doesn't care IMO about doctrines, and christ is a mindset, a state of consciousness.
When you cross the river, burn the boat. Often our small ideas about God go with it.
Mommy... please make it stop...
All you deviants out there... remember weinergate. It eventually comes back around. You will be outed.
Post #7
I honestly don't know if I'm allowed to speak my mind in this forum or not. Maybe this forum is not intended for this but I think it's the best place because Christians can post but the non-Theists can't jump in.
Quesion for SS: Answer as honestly as you can. Since you indicated that pretty much no matter what happens in our discussions--even if a Christian becomes a Buddhist--"it's all good," ... does that mean you would be equally supportive if a Liberal Christian embraced Reformed Christian Doctrine and became a Calvinist?
I suspect that you'll answer yes, you support it.
I also suspect that this is not how you honestly feel, especially considering your strong bitterness if not hatred for Calvin and his theological intrepretations and concepts.
My guess is, "it's all good" if a Christian quits being a Christian or if a Fundy becomes a mainstreamer. "It's all good" if pretty much anyone moves in the opposite direction from strict bible belief--even if that person shuns belief altogether and becomes a Buddhist or an Atheist.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
And here's the rub. If this is true--and I don't want an answer to this but would rather you just think about it--then why don't you consider removing the Christian label from your list? Apart from your mostly peaceful behavior--and I say mostly because you've said some really hateful things about folks like John Calvin--I seriously can't see anything Christian in your posts at all.
You think Christ isn't even real, but instead "just a mindset."
You think God "doesn't care" about doctrine (which if true why the hate for Calvin)
You don't think Christ was resurrected
You question all the bible and reject most of it
You think bible belief requires a lack of common sense
And I *believe* you deny Christ's divinity and miracles - I can't find a direct quote but if He's "just a mindset" then this holds true
I mean, seriously. If that describes a Christian, then I guess I'm an Evolutionist. Afterall, I can see that wolves and dogs belong to the same family, so, I'll just call myself an Evolutionist--and then join in on the Evolutionists conversations and start talking about my belief in Creationism. Does that make sense? No. It doesn't.
Now I'm just a reg'lar ol' guy. And I want to be wrong. But in my humble summation, your posts and beliefs are about as anti-Christian as anything I've ever seen.
I tell you what. I would really, really appreciate you supplying some links to support your claim that you are not only Christian, but "mainstream" and in lockstep with most of the educators at Seminaries and such. If these beliefs of yours are mainstream then for goodness sake they should be public, easily accessible, and folks like yourself should be proclaiming this liberal doctrine from the rooftops.
I've been introduced to the "Jesus Seminar" -- written by alleged "scholars" who for whatever reason believe they know more about what Jesus REALLY said and did, than the writers of the Gospels themselves. So don't give me a URL to a relatively fringe group who got together to write a book attacking the bible. I'm saying that if your beliefs are so "normal" as it were, then you should be able to provide good, solid evidence that a significant percentage of bona fide Christians believe just as you do.
I'm just a reg'lar ol' churchgoer ya know... a layperson. But because in all my life I've never ever met a Christian like you or seen one on TV, or read about one in any book (until a couple weeks ago via my introduction to the "Jesus Seminar"), I'm inclined to think that your belief system is radical and fringe at best.
I'm not here to accuse you, I just want you to educate me on why you can legitimately call yourself Christian - without simply giving me a URL to a radical, fringe website or to a book that is utterly and completely discredited by the majority of the Christian community. I want something real that will change my mind.
Can you provide this? Thanks, bro. Seriously.
Quesion for SS: Answer as honestly as you can. Since you indicated that pretty much no matter what happens in our discussions--even if a Christian becomes a Buddhist--"it's all good," ... does that mean you would be equally supportive if a Liberal Christian embraced Reformed Christian Doctrine and became a Calvinist?
I suspect that you'll answer yes, you support it.
I also suspect that this is not how you honestly feel, especially considering your strong bitterness if not hatred for Calvin and his theological intrepretations and concepts.
My guess is, "it's all good" if a Christian quits being a Christian or if a Fundy becomes a mainstreamer. "It's all good" if pretty much anyone moves in the opposite direction from strict bible belief--even if that person shuns belief altogether and becomes a Buddhist or an Atheist.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
And here's the rub. If this is true--and I don't want an answer to this but would rather you just think about it--then why don't you consider removing the Christian label from your list? Apart from your mostly peaceful behavior--and I say mostly because you've said some really hateful things about folks like John Calvin--I seriously can't see anything Christian in your posts at all.
You think Christ isn't even real, but instead "just a mindset."
You think God "doesn't care" about doctrine (which if true why the hate for Calvin)
You don't think Christ was resurrected
You question all the bible and reject most of it
You think bible belief requires a lack of common sense
And I *believe* you deny Christ's divinity and miracles - I can't find a direct quote but if He's "just a mindset" then this holds true
I mean, seriously. If that describes a Christian, then I guess I'm an Evolutionist. Afterall, I can see that wolves and dogs belong to the same family, so, I'll just call myself an Evolutionist--and then join in on the Evolutionists conversations and start talking about my belief in Creationism. Does that make sense? No. It doesn't.
Now I'm just a reg'lar ol' guy. And I want to be wrong. But in my humble summation, your posts and beliefs are about as anti-Christian as anything I've ever seen.
I tell you what. I would really, really appreciate you supplying some links to support your claim that you are not only Christian, but "mainstream" and in lockstep with most of the educators at Seminaries and such. If these beliefs of yours are mainstream then for goodness sake they should be public, easily accessible, and folks like yourself should be proclaiming this liberal doctrine from the rooftops.
I've been introduced to the "Jesus Seminar" -- written by alleged "scholars" who for whatever reason believe they know more about what Jesus REALLY said and did, than the writers of the Gospels themselves. So don't give me a URL to a relatively fringe group who got together to write a book attacking the bible. I'm saying that if your beliefs are so "normal" as it were, then you should be able to provide good, solid evidence that a significant percentage of bona fide Christians believe just as you do.
I'm just a reg'lar ol' churchgoer ya know... a layperson. But because in all my life I've never ever met a Christian like you or seen one on TV, or read about one in any book (until a couple weeks ago via my introduction to the "Jesus Seminar"), I'm inclined to think that your belief system is radical and fringe at best.
I'm not here to accuse you, I just want you to educate me on why you can legitimately call yourself Christian - without simply giving me a URL to a radical, fringe website or to a book that is utterly and completely discredited by the majority of the Christian community. I want something real that will change my mind.
Can you provide this? Thanks, bro. Seriously.
All you deviants out there... remember weinergate. It eventually comes back around. You will be outed.
Post #8
How can we be better debaters?
These are my personal guidelines in debating against non-Theist.
1. Do not argue or engage in a debate with non-Christian or theist on the subject of Theology. I believe that we must reserve the discussion on Theology and all that pertains to Theology for believers alone.
2. Always try to make a stand base on science, logic and/or reason. There is no better way to gain ground against these people than to make a solid stand base on what they believe in and what they can accept. Save your Bible verses for your parishioners.
3. Make sure to do your homework. Do some research/study on the subject prior to posting or jumping into any discussion or making a stand or taking any position. This will save you from trouble.
4. And last but not least, as Christians, pray for guidance and wisdom. Let God speaks through us.
5. Enjoy and have fun.
These are my personal guidelines in debating against non-Theist.
1. Do not argue or engage in a debate with non-Christian or theist on the subject of Theology. I believe that we must reserve the discussion on Theology and all that pertains to Theology for believers alone.
2. Always try to make a stand base on science, logic and/or reason. There is no better way to gain ground against these people than to make a solid stand base on what they believe in and what they can accept. Save your Bible verses for your parishioners.
3. Make sure to do your homework. Do some research/study on the subject prior to posting or jumping into any discussion or making a stand or taking any position. This will save you from trouble.
4. And last but not least, as Christians, pray for guidance and wisdom. Let God speaks through us.
5. Enjoy and have fun.
-
Angel
Re: How Can we be Better Debaters?
Post #9As ST_JB has bought up, simply researching and having basic knowledge on frequent topics of debate on the existence of God is necessary.Jester wrote:I'd love some discussion on how we might do better at debate, both in general and in addressing the specific issues that seem to occur frequently on the site.
I'll put my thoughts in the first response. Please add as you see fit.
I'd also say from experience, some Christians need to take time to really understand their own beliefs before going out debating to others about Christianity or other's beliefs. And I don't mean learning, researching, and meditating on your beliefs from a religious/biblical or even historical standpoint, but also looking at them from a philosophical and scientific standpoint.
Post #10
I just noticed this and I wanted to give my few cents.ST_JB wrote:How can we be better debaters?
These are my personal guidelines in debating against non-Theist.
1. Do not argue or engage in a debate with non-Christian or theist on the subject of Theology. I believe that we must reserve the discussion on Theology and all that pertains to Theology for believers alone. . . .
Since I joined this forum, my views have changed significantly; and I consider that to be a good thing.
However, because I'm unorthodox, several of my coreligionists here have both stated and implied that I am a false Christian during my time here on the forums because of my unorthodox views concerning theology and accepted religious assumptions.
It is my strong belief that if one cannot rationally defend their particular theological views - (not prove but, provide a logical reasoning for why one believes in them) to a non-believer, than one should not believe in said beliefs themselves.
Why is it that upon conversion that one must accept established doctrines without question as "true," especially if such views cannot be defended or rationalized in any way shape or form against arguments of non-believers?
I mean, I can understand a believer's unwillingness to debate with a non-believer in a vain attempt to prove his believes as fact, when such requires faith -- i.e., belief that God exists.
However, I fail to understand why believers (as the several Christians who I have debated with in the past have done) refuse to even discuss theology with fellow Theists and Christians such as myself, let alone non-theists.
Where is the logic in this? "Oh, you don't accept such-and-such as true, so there's no point in discussing it."
This has happened to me on multiple occasions with various users here -- not only did I find it to be rude, I found it to be dishonest. If anything it helped me to let go of some of my old assumptions about religion and expand my views on matters of faith.
Anyways, just my two cents.
