A brief debate tutorial

General Faith
1

This is similar to another thread from some time ago, but hopefully this will help folks be more effective in getting their points across while avoiding common pit falls, and wounding offenses.

In a “formalish” debate, the initiator makes a statement that they believe, and then sets out to explain, support and defend that belief. On a forum like this, anyone is free to join in giving their opinions, etc.

For example, let’s say that I feel strongly about having children. So I start a thread like so:

“Be it resolved, that all Christians are obligated to have as many children as God naturally blesses them with.”

Then I would list the scriptures and maybe experiences, or whatever, that support my resolution.

Anyone joining the debate should always stick to the subject, speak directly to the points offered by the initiator, remain respectful and gracious at all times, avoid informal fallacies like the plague.

  1. First Informal fallacy - Ad Hominem. That’s when we attack the speaker rather than engage the argument. If I offer my resolution, and someone says “that’s just stupid”, we should all recognize that the person has no arguments and HAS ALREADY LOST. Lost the debate, lost respect, lost credibility. If you find yourself tempted to say anything negative about the person, STIFLE THAT SINFUL TEMPTATION!

  2. Second informal fallacy - Red Herring. Also known on forums as “derailing the thread”. Not as bad as Ad Hominem, but rude and unproductive. A red herring argument means to distract from the resolution by dragging the discussion away into subjects that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Paul used a red herring to divide the Pharisees and the Sadducee’s by proclaiming at trial his belief in the resurrection, which caused them to turn away from their accusations of him, and instead to argue with each other. Perhaps you have a pet dispute that you try to introduce into every discussion, no matter what the subject. Again, that indicates that you have nothing valuable to add to the discussion.

  3. Third informal fallacy - Circular argument. Easy to see. If you try to prove that the Bible is true, because the Bible says so, that would be a circular argument. Also called “begging the question”.

  4. Fourth informal fallacy - Straw Man argument. The name comes from a deceptive practice in medieval times when one side populates their countryside with dozens or hundreds of scarecrows in uniform to try to get the enemy to back down or misjudge their battle prospects. It’s a fake army, but from a distance that may be hard to tell. In debate, it refers to one person substantively changing the argument offered by an opponent, and then facing off with the false argument that they themselves created, rather than the actual argument at hand. If I say “speciation through biological evolution is not possible”, and my opponent says, “what about the finch beaks on the Galápagos Islands?”, that would be a strawman, because the finches never changed species. This one is frustrating and deceptive, and again indicates that the person offering a strawman argument has no good arguments to offer. They have lost.

There are several more, (google lists 11), but I want to hit the most common ones, and especially the ones that cause enmity. Ad Hominem, where you attack the person rather than the argument is the worst. Followed by strawman. Second worst.

If someone answers my resolution saying, “I think it would be wrong to adopt more kids when you already have over 10 kids, because 10 is already too many, and people are starving in Japan, and anyone would be an idiot for saying that”, congratulations, you’ve used all four informal fallacies, and you should be kicked off the forum.

Just kidding about the kicked off part.

Hopefully we can mind our manners and our protocols, and grow in our understanding of God, without offending each other!

Your brother

2 Likes
2

@Pater15 Thanks for the tutorial, i was kind of confused on how it all goes. I thought in a debate or discussion someone says what they believe to be true and why they believe this and then the next person either agrees and states why they agree or they disagee and give the reason why they believe this to be true instead. I was in a discussion or debate on forums and after i gave my opinon because this what i believe to be true with no facts to back it up just my belief. I was attacked and was accused of using something like one of these fallacy. For example if Jim says he think George eats dirt because he seen mud on Georges face and i say No i dont think George eats dirt i think George and his brother had a mud ball fight at the park earlier and maybe hadnt cleaned himself just yet. Am i wrong for my opinion? Did i do anything wrong? Sometimes i think some people are so combative that because someone doesnt see something the same way they do that they automaticly go on offense and attack and lash out when in reality the other person just stated their opinon and didnt attack the other persons opinon. What would this informal fallacy be called? And that is a serious ? im not being sarcastic. Because this is my first time on a forums and i dont know the strategys to it, im here to learn and grow not argue of force someone to believe my opinion. What i think maybe wrong and i can accept that and move forward. But like i said im here to learn not to convince the next person that my opinion is right. i dont know im sorry just trying to figure out how this works and why people are debating in the first place when we are all on the same side.? shouldn’t we be working together to beat satan instead of him working in us to cause us to debate about what is right and what is wrong? everyone has an opinon not everyone is right or wrong but because your opinion is different than mine doesn’t mean that we cant learn from each other or that in the end of our discussion that one of our opinion may change? thank you for your time my friend and doing this post for some of us to learn

3

Well let’s take a look at opinions versus beliefs.

A belief is something that we hold to be true. And we should be able to offer objective, fact based, rational reasons for holding that belief. A belief shouldn’t waver based on what others say about it, unless they can effectively demonstrate that the foundational data that your belief relies on is actually not true.

You believe your car is red, because it is red. You see it every day, and you can provide pictures. Your belief matches a reality that you can demonstrate to be true with actual concrete evidence.

The value of debate is that different people have the opportunity to offer the facts and data about a particular subject that they believe to be true. Then, through comparison, each person can evaluate their own beliefs, and decide if they were right about their own beliefs, or on the other hand to decide that their beliefs were based on false or incomplete data, and it’s time to change their beliefs.

So someone might debate you on your red car, and point out that it’s actually green. You’ve only decided that it’s red since last Halloween when you got knocked over the head by a thug. Before that it WAS green, but now it looks red to you. SO other people can look at the car and the pictures and let you know, hey buddy, sorry to tell you, but the car is green. None of these beliefs, true or false, are opinions.

Opinions are more along the lines of a subjective analysis of the facts. Let’s say a child has been abused. The abuse is a historical, undeniable fact. So it’s true that the abuse occurred. Everyone can hold that as a true belief. The child was abused, and everyone knows that. It’s not an opinion.

Now, what is to be done with the criminal who did the abusing? One person’s opinion might be that it’s the fault of the person who abused the abuser decades earlier, and that every effort should be made to forgive and rehabilitate the criminal. Another opinion might be that abusers are incurable, and that they should be summarily executed, thus ridding society of a deadly cancer.

Neither opinion is a fact. They each have made a subjective reckoning of what happened, and offered their opinions on what should be done about it.

I would encourage you to offer your thoughts after carefully deciding if you really believe them to be true, and what you are basing your beliefs on. Can you say that your beliefs are actually factual? And if so, you can be prepared to share the reasons for your beliefs with anyone who might say that your beliefs are not true. And don’t take it too personally that someone disagrees, based on their own access to factual data. It’s not a value judgement of you personally.

And then also feel free to offer your own opinions. Someone may want to know why you have your opinions. And you can have that discussion.

Your brother

1 Like
4

Please continue with questions or viewpoints re:Debates.

In order to not derail this thread, I’m starting a new thread where we can discuss:

Opinions - Beliefs - Faith

5

My question was not about the difference between opinions and beliefs. It was what informal fallacy would it be called in a debate if i attack someone who opinions or beliefs are different than mine and i accuse them of using one of these informal fallacys when really they are not, they are just simply saying what there opinion or beliefs are? Thank you not trying to get you off the topic but there has to be a name for that strategy. Right? wrong?

6

So they are just making a false statement? That wouldn’t fall under the heading of any specific informal fallacy. Although it might if we are given additional information.

For example, let’s suppose the question is, “How do you prove you’re married to a woman?”

And you say, “I know I’m married to a woman because she’s my wife, we have a marriage certificate from 32 years ago, and her birth certificate that shows she was born a female 57 years ago, and she has born 3 children.”

And your opponent says, “that’s a circular argument because your simply restating the definition.”

His response is an obvious falsehood, so you say “that’s an obvious falsehood”, and you just point out how it isn’t a circular argument, since you have given several proofs.

If you had said, “I know I’m married to a woman because she is a girl.”, that would be a circular argument. You can exchange the terms and the sentence is the same, as in, “I know I’m married to a girl because she is a woman.”

Your brother

2 Likes
7

Clarity and order in a discussion are not inherently bad things. In fact, Scripture actually exhorts us to let our speech be seasoned. “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt” ~Colossians 4:6. Avoiding straw men, sticking to what was actually said, and not attacking others personally are all prudent and constructive guardrails for any dialogue.

However, nowhere does Scripture set truth up as though it were determined by the rules of debate. Jesus never refuted someone by pointing to their breach of protocol. He refuted them by pointing to what God had said. “Have ye not read…?” ~Matthew 12:3. John the Baptist didn’t take Herod to task over his argument style. He called him out on his sin. “It is not lawful for thee to have her” ~Matthew 14:4. That wasn’t an argument fallacy. It was truth squarely applied to the situation.

Yes, let’s shun straw men, avoiding getting off point and punching down. But let’s not go so far as to treat the rules of debate as more important than Bible itself. We do not aim to win arguments, we aim to give ourselves over to what is true. “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable” ~James 3:17. If we let Scripture lead the conversation, all these things will flow naturally, even through times of uncomfortable discord.

1 Like
8

Ha ha, please forgive me sir if I have a little fun…. And let me say that I firmly believe that your intent is noble, but I will point out some problems, if you will allow me some grace please sir.

Strawman. Nobody made that claim.

Strawman. Again, nobody said that.

Ridiculous strawman. Certainly nobody said that.

This is false. The only way it could true is if we all had the same perfect understanding of scripture, and no one ever got emotionally attached to their own understanding of the scripture. I think the point of identifying fallacies is to point out that the person using the fallacy has already deserted the scriptural flow of a discussion, through ignorance or even through animus.

The problem with a strawman argument is the implication that the person you are having the discussion with actually said those things. And they may resent the implication, because it feels like a false aspersion. Then the emotions and indignation get involved, and the knives come out ha ha.

Iron sharpening iron is good, but we shouldn’t be sharpening our own knives to go after each other! Ha ha.

Iron sharpening iron can be a painful process. And we all think it’s commendable to courageously stand up for the truth. That’s our purpose. We should take great care to not unnecessarily nick each other as we contend for the truth.

“Fallacies” are just that. Falsehoods. Relying on something that isn’t true to try to advocate for the truth. So it’s a little more than just bad manners, or breach of etiquette.

Again, I rush to assure you - I used your post as an illustration of how misunderstandings can happen. It wasn’t at all my intent to disparage your intent. We all often use extreme examples in casual discussion. I’m not saying those are “lies”. Just that they aren’t appropriate in more formal debate. Each has it’s useful place.

Your brother