A call to Christian Debaters

[liamconnor]

I continue to be terribly frustrated with one prevalent flaw in these debates: deviations. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I frequent this site less and less.

I myself am extremely careful to make sure every reply I make keeps to the OP. At my worst, I explicitly mention that the OP is being broken, and then answer a question. But I always say, after a while, "Let's start a new OP".

I consider the tendency to deviate to be either 1) a deficiency in intellect: the guilty has nothing to say about the OP, and so changes the subject, but lacks the cognizance to know what she or he is doing or 2) A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

Now, in order to turn an appeal into a debate, I ask, "Are these valid, and the only, reasons why nearly EVERY SINGLE MEMBER HERE deviates from a topic rather than CHALLENGING MEMBERS TO STICK TO A TOPIC?"

(But really, I am asking for Christian Debaters to get smart. Don't get side-tracked. If an opponent makes a claim that goes beyond the OP, simply say, 'I am happy to start a new OP with you, or to talk about this over PM'. We are doing the Kingdom NO good by allowing our emotions to follow the temptation of sliding this way and that among topics. Let's be sly. Let's notice when antagonists are attempting to 'change the subject by rattling us').

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that you have missed the most often reason why the you seem to feel that a thread has gone "Off Topic", and that is simply because you disagree with the the replies other people have offered.

Then you scream "Off Topic".

For example, in your thread An historical challenge you ask for natural explanations for how rumors of a resurrected Jesus might have gotten started.

You were given two or more perfectly natural explanations for this. Yet you rejected these proclaiming that no ivy league school would accept them.

Sorry, but that's doesn't fly.

Your topic was answered. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. And then you act like it's other people who are the ones who refuse to stay on topic.

Apparently you aren't going to allow anything to be "on topic" unless it agrees completely with the conclusions that you are demanding to hear.

That wouldn't even be a debate.

[wiploc]

I consider the tendency to deviate to be either 1) a deficiency in intellect: the guilty has nothing to say about the OP, and so changes the subject, but lacks the cognizance to know what she or he is doing or 2) A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

Now, in order to turn an appeal into a debate, I ask, "Are these valid, and the only, reasons why nearly EVERY SINGLE MEMBER HERE deviates from a topic rather than CHALLENGING MEMBERS TO STICK TO A TOPIC?"

Maybe people are comfortable here, just chatting with friends the way they do in meatworld? Maybe they don't have your required degree of OCD? Maybe they have more tolerance for uncertain unfocused conversational drift?

I have to say that attributing all of something you don't like to either malice or stupidity ... that's not very ... it could itself be seen as either--here we go: It isn't charitable.

I agree with you that there are too many digressions, but I assume that that often works out for people. Many interesting topics are covered, and a good time is had by all.

2) A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

My perception is that she often doesn't know her position has been compromised. A change in subject can be an attempt to protect herself from that knowledge. It may be done purposely without being done consciously.

My respect for William Lane Craig's intellect is exactly why I believe he's a liar. In his case, the bad moves are conscious and deliberate. Let me tell you, that doesn't make things better.

I consider the tendency to deviate to be either 1) a deficiency in intellect: the guilty has nothing to say about the OP, and so changes the subject, but lacks the cognizance to know what she or he is doing or 2) A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

If all parties to a discussion are doing it (according to you "nearly EVERY SINGLE MEMBER HERE") then how are you singling out one of them as "the guilty"? Is it that you think we are all malicious and stupid? If so, what the heck are you doing here?

In any case, there's absolutely no reason to assume that "the guilty" has nothing to say about the OP. Often, "the guilty" will have just spoken to the OP, and will continue to do so.

I'm not that comfortable with the commas setting off "and so changes the subject," but you definitely need one after "what she or he is doing."

I'm back home. Such a relief to have good internet again. We drove around Lake Superior. The people are nice, the scenery ecstatic. Brimley State Park had no internet, no phones, and hundreds of kids screaming happily thru the long northern dusk. I was charmed by the well worn trails in the forest that I couldn't follow because of the low branches. They were made by children, see, so they didn't have headroom for adults.

I'm told that humans are 90% water, that we're pretty much just cucumbers with anxiety.

[Jagella]

I continue to be terribly frustrated with one prevalent flaw in these debates: deviations. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I frequent this site less and less.

I share your frustration, but I think it's best to hang in there and to continue these dialogues. To me these discussions are not merely verbal jousting for fun but are very important means to solve society's ills.

I myself am extremely careful to make sure every reply I make keeps to the OP. At my worst, I explicitly mention that the OP is being broken, and then answer a question. But I always say, after a while, "Let's start a new OP".

I've run into that same problem. I have a tough time getting my interlocutors to address the issues I've raised in the OP and to answer the question(s) for debate.

I consider the tendency to deviate to be either 1) a deficiency in intellect: the guilty has nothing to say about the OP, and so changes the subject, but lacks the cognizance to know what she or he is doing...

Hmmm. So you think some people may be too stupid to wrap their heads around the topic. That may be, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

2) ...or A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

Definitely! I get that a lot. It seems to me that the tough questions I ask, if answered honestly and sensibly, would serve to expose the positions held by those who respond to my OPs. So they post a lot of red herrings to lead attention away from the material in the OP--material they are loathe to address.

Now, in order to turn an appeal into a debate, I ask, "Are these valid, and the only, reasons why nearly EVERY SINGLE MEMBER HERE deviates from a topic rather than CHALLENGING MEMBERS TO STICK TO A TOPIC?"

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you reword this question?

(But really, I am asking for Christian Debaters to get smart. Don't get side-tracked. If an opponent makes a claim that goes beyond the OP, simply say, 'I am happy to start a new OP with you, or to talk about this over PM'. We are doing the Kingdom NO good by allowing our emotions to follow the temptation of sliding this way and that among topics. Let's be sly. Let's notice when antagonists are attempting to 'change the subject by rattling us').

My feelings about deviations from the issue(s) raised in the OP is that they seem to be inevitable. I think such deviations are fine as long as they come after addressing the topic raised in the OP and answering the question for debate.

So I hope I've addressed your concerns to your satisfaction. Let me know if I did not, and I will try to more adequately address those issues.

[William]

If deviation happens, point it out and don't encourage it by getting distracted by it. You also have the option of reporting posts which you feel are off-topic.

[Divine Insight]

If deviation happens, point it out and don't encourage it by getting distracted by it. You also have the option of reporting posts which you feel are off-topic.

It seems to me that there is a problem with trying to report "off-topic" posts, simply because the very notion of being "off-topic" is not so readily apparent.

In fact, I hold that Liamconnor's complaints are a perfect example of this.

Here's what I see happening from my perspective:

Liamconnor wants to debate the Gospels from the perspective that they are dependable "Historical Records" of what had actually happened concerning the resurrection of Jesus.

Right off the bat people's first objections are that these Gospels tales do not satisfy the criteria of dependable historical records. Liamconnor rejects those objections demanding that they do indeed satisfy valid historical records and must be treated as such.

So we're already off to a seriously bad disagreement at the very onset.

But not to worry, perhaps we can accept his premise and try to move forward:

But instantly we have a second problem. As soon as we try to embrace Liamconnor's position that the Gospel tales must be explained in detail as if they are dependable historical records we start to point out all the claims that must be explained as follows:

1. The Gospels claim that Jesus was born of a virgin who had angels telling her that she was pregnant with the Son of God.

2. The Gospels claim that King Herod tried to kill Jesus by having all the first born babies killed and that God told Mary to take Jesus to a safe place.

3. The Gospels have God himself speaking from the clouds proclaiming that Jesus is his Son and that we should listen to what Jesus has to say.

4. The Gospels have many saints being jostled from their graves to physically climb out of their graves to go into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there.

5. The Gospels have Jesus being physically resurrected complete with all the wounds he had received in a crucifixion that Liamconnor himself is certain was so brutal that Jesus could not survive it.

6. The Gospels have a physical Jesus taking his wounded physical body up to spiritual heaven with him to sit at the right-hand of God to become the new ruler and judge of humanity in a monotheistic religion.

If we bring up any of the above items that are included in the Gospels Liamconnor screams "OFF TOPIC!"

What? How can any of these things be "off topic" if the topic is to debate whether or not the Gospels should be accepted as credible historical documents?

It really doesn't even end there. These Gospels also require that the entire Old Testament (or at least the first 5 books of it) must also be true, and accurate to every jot and tittle according to the Gospels themselves.

Yet if we point this out Liamconnor screams "OFF TOPIC!"

In other words, if we mention anything at all that brings the Gospels into question Liamconnor immediately objects.

All he wants to do is demand that everything that Gospels have to say about the resurrection (and the resurrection ONLY) is to be addressed and nothing else that might bring into question the historical authenticity of these ancient tales.

But is that truly realistic?

He's demanding that we must take everything the Gospels say about the resurrection of Jesus as the "Gospels Truth" and as "Historically Verified Facts" whilst screaming "OFF TOPIC!" if we dare to bring to his attention anything else these very same Gospels might have to say, or might depend upon.

I just don't see where that's a realistic or practical demand on his part.

And then he also demands that any Ivy League School would back him up on this and that the topics we bring up would be rejected by these Ivy League Schools as being absolute nonsense and inadmissible information.

And then he simply demands that he's right in that claim and that we're wrong. So the Ivy League Schools back him up and would reject our objections as being the objections of uneducated idiots.

And he finally demands that anyone who doesn't accept his entire approach is "OFF TOPIC!"

I just don't see where there is any credibility to this kind of debate tactic.

"Ivy League Schools would agree with me and flunk you OUT! So there!"

That's the gist of his argument right there.

Disagree with him on that claim and he'll scream "You're OFF TOPIC!"

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Well that's a whole other topic right there.

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by wiploc]

I'm back home. Such a relief to have good internet again. We drove around Lake Superior. The people are nice, the scenery ecstatic. Brimley State Park had no internet, no phones, and hundreds of kids screaming happily thru the long northern dusk. I was charmed by the well worn trails in the forest that I couldn't follow because of the low branches. They were made by children, see, so they didn't have headroom for adults.

I'm told that humans are 90% water, that we're pretty much just cucumbers with anxiety.

No - we are not the forms we occupy. We are so much more than cucumbers or apes. At least cucumbers don't get easily distracted...or DO they?!

I digress...

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Well that's a whole other topic right there.

Exactly. And that becomes the underhanded trick.

The author of the OP: "An Ivy League School would totally back me up and flunk you out as an uneducated idiot."

Debate opponent: Ok, let me address that claim.

The author of the OP: NO WAY! That's OFF TOPIC!

Yeah, right.

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Well that sounds like a type of baiting, and so the remedy would be to notice when it happens and not buy into it...don't snack on the morsel and get caught in the hook.

Stay on topic...simply state "sorry [off topic article] is 'no go zone'... don't ignore the bait so much as show the baiter that you see the bait and are not interested in it. De-bait the baiter....