Debate Etiquette

[rusmeister]

Herein is the problem - if I may refer back to the OP.
The amount of nonsense that can be generated about Christianity (or any other faith or belief system) is practically unlimited. So any discussion where people are expressing their own opinions will simply degenerate into a pointless discussion going in any number of directions, until it is impossible to respond to them all. No real progress will be made into establishing whether something is nonsense about Christianity or not.

The only way one could possibly establish anything accurately would be to inquire as to what Christians actually believe, identify commonalities ("mere Christianity", if you will) and differences, and then distinguish between what can be applied to one or some of the major faiths vs what can be applied to all of them ('mC').

Otherwise, we have a thread where everyone has expressed their own opinions, all are satisfied that they are in the right, and few, if any, have learned anything accurate about what they disagree with.

[Lord Mhoram]

...as opposed to quoting apologists (Chesterton and Lewis, if you will), in which case it's just a discussion of somebody else's opinions.

In other words, it's the same thing, rus.

[rusmeister]

...as opposed to quoting apologists (Chesterton and Lewis, if you will), in which case it's just a discussion of somebody else's opinions.

In other words, it's the same thing, rus.

Hi again, LM.
I'm surprised that you don't understand by now that the people I refer to have exactly the same opinion as I do - in fact, we don't hold it to be a personal opinion at all, but truth which we have commonly discovered, albeit in different ways.
To iterate, religious views can be seen to be as true, and as objective, as scientific views, and in such cases, as in mine, they are neither private nor personal.

Once you understand that, you can see that all Chesterton or Lewis are doing is, generally speaking, defending the same thing I am - and doing it much better than I do. I see a refusal to engage with that defense as a form of intellectual cowardice/dishonesty (assuming that a person is attacking Christian claims - basically they are making pronouncements on the faith while never learning - indeed, refusing to learn - what the best defenses of the faith are).

For a third time, it is a complete misnomer to label these views as merely personal, or merely mine. I share what all Christians pronounce in the Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed).

THE SYMBOL OF FAITH

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

None of this is seen as personal opinion. Everything else is just a defense of that. I do the best I can with the time I have. But I deny that I am the best defender of the Faith. If you think you have "defeated" me, you still have not defeated the best. There are more formidable defenders out there, and I'm just pointing to a couple of them.

Are you aware of what the Socratic Club was? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_Club

there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together into ‘coteries’ where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumor that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other groups can say.”

This place has a lot of really bright people, and I'd like to see the discussions go to that depth, rather than remain on the 3rd-grade level that they usually do in terms of knowledge of what the thing being attacked/defended is.

[danlo]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

[Loredoctor]

This place has a lot of really bright people, and I'd like to see the discussions go to that depth, rather than remain on the 3rd-grade level that they usually do in terms of knowledge of what the thing being attacked/defended is.

Whatever, Rusmeister.

[rusmeister]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

First of all, I'm only expressing an average, I used a "3rd grade" as a figure of speech to express the complexity of the topic, and only apply it regarding knowledge of Christian history and theology, not knowledge in general - I prefaced it with

"This place has a lot of really bright people, and I'd like to see the discussions go to that depth"

I do find the average IQ of posters here to be higher than in other places I've seen on the 'net. I'm just expressing that I would like to eliminate all of the complaints against the lowest and worst forms of Christianity and focus on challenges to the best. So that if people DO continue to reject the faith, at the very least least it's in spite of sincere efforts to learn about the best.

C'mon, Danlo, I'm getting that you like to cause trouble. (Your own words) If you do it all the time it'll be like "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'".

[Loredoctor]

C'mon, Danlo, I'm getting that you like to cause trouble. (Your own words) If you do it all the time it'll be like "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'".

There is a reason danlo was made an administrator at this site; he has shown great respect for others, as well as propriety. You could ask many members here about his behaviour, and you will unlikely encounter a single criticism - or that he likes to cause trouble. He's possibly one of the most respectful and relaxed people here.

[rdhopeca]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

It's ok...3rd grade is about the time most of us stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, so it's probably about the point that those of us who don't believe in God are intellectually stuck at as well.

[Menolly]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

It's ok...3rd grade is about the time most of us stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny,

Hey!
I may be Jewish, but I still believe in Santa!
...or at least in all he stands for to children, anyway.

*nice call on the Santa emote*

[rdhopeca]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

It's ok...3rd grade is about the time most of us stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny,

Hey!
I may be Jewish, but I still believe in Santa!
...or at least in all he stands for to children, anyway.

*nice call on the Santa emote*

I said most of us

[CovenantJr]

So you're implying that we're all on the 3rd grade level? Elitism.

It's ok...3rd grade is about the time most of us stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, so it's probably about the point that those of us who don't believe in God are intellectually stuck at as well.

Third graders, though, can usually take a stab at telling you why they think something/like something - "because it's good", "because it's bad", "because my dad said so", etc. Even they make more effort than "just read this".

[rusmeister]

C'mon, Danlo, I'm getting that you like to cause trouble. (Your own words) If you do it all the time it'll be like "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'".

There is a reason danlo was made an administrator at this site; he has shown great respect for others, as well as propriety. You could ask many members here about his behaviour, and you will unlikely encounter a single criticism - or that he likes to cause trouble. He's possibly one of the most respectful and relaxed people here.

I'm making no special assumptions about him here, LM. He himself used those words about himself. Because I don't know him that well, I don't know yet when he is merely joking and when he is making a serious reply. That's all I meant.

[Lord Mhoram]

Third grade? Seriously? I haven't exactly seen graduate seminar level analysis from you, rusmeister. I've seen some quotations, some hyperlinks, and some condescension. I'm way more sympathetic to your cause than almost anybody else in here and I'm steaming mad. I've read CS Lewis extensively (I used to moderate a forum on him), I've been ingrained with Christian theology since I was literally in the first grade (guess I've only advanced a couple years since then), and even though I no longer consider myself a Christian I do not consider myself a moral relativist. But there are certain ways to go about discussing these issues. For evidence, take a look at the way these threads have been derailed. This one, in fact. We're not talking about Christianity at this point. We're talking about your debating style, when we could be discussing the actual issue at hand (admittedly a murky one in this thread, but still). Learn to accommodate.

Now, I realize you are sympathetic to the thought of Christian apologists like Chesterton and Lewis. But as has already been brought up, neither of them was even Orthodox. That's not at all a minor issue; in fact, your adherence to Orthodoxy seems to color your entire worldview. Which makes sense, that is what religion is supposed to do and there is nothing at all wrong with that in my view. Yet when we question why the fact that your favorite thinkers, whose point of view you seem to privilege above all else, don't adhere to your own denomination, and you dismiss it as minor, well, that seems inconsistent to me at least. Furthermore, even if they were entirely in line with your own positions (which they are not contrary to your claim, as we've established), this doesn't mean quotations entails debate. It just doesn't. Lewis and Chesterton were intellectuals, interpreters, thinkers. They were not gurus or divine. Knowing what I do about CS Lewis, I think he'd be reluctant for his adherents to base their entire theological beliefs upon his writings alone (or even coupled with another thinker or two). There ought to be a pastiche of beliefs. Perhaps you do have that sort of intellectual collage in your own system, but it has not been adequately presented to us if so. Furthermore, once you've developed a diverse range of sources for your beliefs, it becomes necessary for you to articulate that diversity in your own words.

What I am trying to say is that no matter how eloquent your intellectual standard bearers are, you simply cannot display critical thinking by quoting them alone. It's impossible. Imagine if all Chesterton had done was quote the Bible and written below his block quotations, "Ah yes, this is simply how it is. For more information, read the rest of the New Testament." No one would read him. What we're asking you to do, essentially, is be an apologist for your own beliefs.

[Cybrweez]

LM, I imagine rus understands that way of thinking. From what I've read of his responses to previous posts just like yours, is that when discussing issues, sometimes a forum on the internet is not conducive to discussing deep topics, and if one is really curious to learn some of the deep issues, there are writings that do a better job than rus can on an internet forum.

And many here disagree, and want rus to discuss these deep topics in this format. So there's disagreement about how to discuss/debate certain issues, no surprise there. So, which is the True discussion/debate format?

[Menolly]

So, which is the True discussion/debate format?

heh. True format. Is there such a thing?

My own problem with what rus proposes is that even if others should have the works of Lewis and Chesterton at hand, and still disagree with rus, that the debate would digress into posts that simply consist of quotes from each of their writings, supposedly representing the posters point of view with no input from the users themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, in spite of how engrossing the quotes may be, such a discourse would be boring...

But that's my point of view, and mean no offense to rus or any other who would prefer that style of discourse. I simply would not continue to read the thread.

[Orlion]

To be fair, it seems as if he's incorparating the ideas of lewis into his posts without directly qouting them more often, what we want is a bit of a change, and it is sometimes difficult to change the format of one's arguments.

[Xar]

So, which is the True discussion/debate format?

heh. True format. Is there such a thing?

My own problem with what rus proposes is that even if others should have the works of Lewis and Chesterton at hand, and still disagree with rus, that the debate would digress into posts that simply consist of quotes from each of their writings, supposedly representing the posters point of view with no input from the users themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, in spite of how engrossing the quotes may be, such a discourse would be boring...

But that's my point of view, and mean no offense to rus or any other who would prefer that style of discourse. I simply would not continue to read the thread.

The point as I see it is, this forum is meant for everyone to participate and contribute - not for posters to quote their favorite authors in lieu of their own viewpoint (or in any case, not adding anything from their own philosophy and beliefs to what these authors may have to say). As an individual, everyone of us has ideas and beliefs within the boundaries set by our chosen religion (or lack thereof); I can well understand that some forum readers would find an endless back-and-forth using other people's quotes quite boring. There is also another risk, that is, some forum visitors may see such posts and automatically (rightly or wrongly) assume that the poster in question has no personal ideas of his or her own, in which case they may start ignoring the poster, the thread, or simply the ideas the poster is trying to offer.

Even and especially within the boundaries of such a forum, I think it is much more interesting to learn and debate one's own personal opinions rather than more generalized ones. Anyway, since this thread has long since strayed from its original topic, and I don't want people to attack each other (which doesn't seem that far, judging from the tones of some posts), I'm going to split this topic...

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm not at all interested in dueling in excess verbage and copious quoting of deceased philosophers. I only posted in the Close by virtue of danlo (not that I don't like all of you folks including the ones that disagree) because many discussion of religion turn into bottomless philosophy arguments (not that there is anything wrong with that either rather that's not something I want to be involved in).

Given that...the rules of debate mean an understanding of the various subjects by both parties and not simple opinion or the use of another's thought ad nausem.

If we wish to have some form of debate then A presents facts supported by X and Y and Z if necessary while B questions said facts with E and F noting the inconsistencies of Y and Z and not A presents facts that B doesn't like therefore A is wrong. For better or worse objectivity is a real thing that people generally agree on the problem arises when one party refuses to be objective because it doesn't further their argument or beliefs.

[Menolly]

Given that...the rules of debate mean an understanding of the various subjects by both parties and not simple opinion or the use of another's thought ad nausem.

If we wish to have some form of debate then A presents facts supported by X and Y and Z if necessary while B questions said facts with E and F noting the inconsistencies of Y and Z and not A presents facts that B doesn't like therefore A is wrong. For better or worse objectivity is a real thing that people generally agree on the problem arises when one party refuses to be objective because it doesn't further their argument or beliefs.

The only objection I have to that is my understanding is discourse here in The Close is not the same as in the Tank. I was told that here, opinion without support is welcome. Should everyone wish to change that, it would be good to have it blatantly stated in the guidelines for posting in here, perhaps in the Round Table Discussion thread. I pretty much only post opinion, unless I have a semblance of an idea where I came across something...

[Kinslaughterer]

I don't mean to defame an opinion and of course it is welcome here, but rather to object to and debate a factual argument with an opinion is both unsuccessful and really defeating the purpose of responding to the argument in the first place.