General Rules Of Discussion

[MBASS]

The only debate I had with an atheist I sorta won! He was using the Lords name in vain and I told him he couldnt say that, he says why. I said you dont believe he exists so quit calling on him! The next week I told him at the Christmas party to give back his freebies and Christmas bonus and to work on Christmas. He looked at me funny and called it his Holiday check. I looked at him and said well on the paystub it says Christmas, Ill be much obliged to take it off your hands!

[StrawberryFields]

The only debate I had with an atheist I sorta won! He was using the Lords name in vain and I told him he couldnt say that, he says why. I said you dont believe he exists so quit calling on him! The next week I told him at the Christmas party to give back his freebies and Christmas bonus and to work on Christmas. He looked at me funny and called it his Holiday check. I looked at him and said well on the paystub it says Christmas, Ill be much obliged to take it off your hands!

Good point. I know some who will even take time away from things that should really matter to them to try and convince others that they are wrong in their beliefs. When asked why they do this they say that they want to teach self illumination

[MBASS]

Was that a jab at someone we all know? HMMMM?!

[StrawberryFields]

Was that a jab at someone we all know? HMMMM?!

A jab, no, I thought this was a discussion and we were just discussing atheists. Everyone knows I love him.

[MBASS]

Ha Ha! WE all love him!

[Dr T]

Hey CT,

If you want to debate an athiest, try infidel.org.

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

The only debate I had with an atheist I sorta won! He was using the Lords name in vain and I told him he couldnt say that, he says why. I said you dont believe he exists so quit calling on him! The next week I told him at the Christmas party to give back his freebies and Christmas bonus and to work on Christmas. He looked at me funny and called it his Holiday check. I looked at him and said well on the paystub it says Christmas, Ill be much obliged to take it off your hands!

Good point. I know some who will even take time away from things that should really matter to them to try and convince others that they are wrong in their beliefs. When asked why they do this they say that they want to teach self illumination

Almost reminds me of missionaries lol

SS you know I love thee. but are you off your rocker?

Missionaries teach of a Higher Being. They don't teach of self illumination

[CaptainTux]

Hey CT,

If you want to debate an athiest, try infidel.org.

It would have to have to be organized and have judges. It is not about proof per se, it is about having the better argument and better position. It is interesting that most astronomers are theists and most earth sciences are atheists. It is too hard to look into the stars, see the organization of the universe and deny intelligent design and write it off as random behavior.

The evolution/creation debate is just too easy these days. yawn.......

[Dr T]

Hi CT,

So you would not be interested in the discussion or debate that does not have a judge? Just wondering.

[CaptainTux]

If there were grounds rules established to the debate, I would seriously consider it.

[CaptainTux]

Here are the proposed online rules that might be interesting. I modified some general debate rules to accommodate us online.

I would recommend a third party to moderate and enforce the rules and three judges who promise to be impartial.

1. Introductory Provisions (Objectives)

The aim of the debate is intended to educate while teaching sportsmanship and social etiquette as well. Favoring one or more of these aspects at the expense of others is to misunderstand the fundamental principles of constructive debate.

In view of that, participants agree:

* to adhere to the principles of fair play, decent behaviour and mutual respect to the best of their abilities

* not to knowingly use untrue information;

* to be willing to debate given resolution,

2. Debate Format

Two people participate in each debate. One is given the role of the affirmative side, the other one the negative. The selection of the role (side) shall be conducted in a way announced beforehand to both persons by the organizer of the debate or agreed upon by the two persons..

2.1 Roles of Individual Speakers

A1

The debate is started by the first member of the affirmative side (A1). He/she has the right to define the resolution. S/he introduces the criterion (if the resolution allows one), and then outlines the structure and organization of the defense of the resolution. S/he presents the focus of argumentation and the basic arguments of his /her side.

After A1 finishes his/her speech, s/he is cross-questioned by the speaker of the negative side (N1).

N1

The speaker of the negative side (N1) must accept the given definition, unless it contradicts the rules of the competition. Her/his primary task is to deal with the arguments of the affirmative side (i.e. to refute or accept them). After s/he thinks s/he has managed his/her task, s/he shall present his/her case and major arguments. S/he can also introduce their own criterion.

After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the affirmative side (A1).

A1

The speaker of the affirmative side (A1) primarily supports the arguments which have been challenged/refuted by N1. S/he refutes the refutation (i.e. rebuts). If the negative side presented their own case, s/he shall refute it. After s/he thinks s/he has managed his/her task, s/he shall continue in the argumentation of the affirmative side.

After finishing his/her speech, A1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the negative side.

N1

The speaker of the negative side (N1) shall first challenge what A1 tried to rebut (primarily challenges the challenge of the refutation), and then s/he challenges new arguments presented by A1. After s/he thinks s/he has managed her/his task, s/he continues in the argumentation of her/his side (provided that the negative side, beginning with N1, had decided to build own constructive case).

After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the speaker of the aff. side.

3. Rules of a Debate

3.1 Criterion

Concerning policy resolutions a criterion is a popularly accepted desirable aim which sets the line of the case. A criterion serves this function (setting the line of the case) also with the non-policy resolutions (factual and value resolutions) where it could be understood as either a standard or a goal.

3.2 Definition

The purpose of the definition is to explain how the affirmative side understands the resolution and what they want to discuss.

The affirmative side has the right to define the resolution in any way provided that:

- the definition does not depart from the common meaning of the resolution;

- the meaning of the words is not twisted purposefully;

- the definition is ”reasonable”.

The negative side is allowed to challenge the definition only if the definition in question does not conform to the above-mentioned rules. If the negative side challenges the definition, this must be done by N1, who will explain why the definition does not conform to the rules and will offer a revised definition.

Negative strategy is considered fallacious if the team challenges the definition without explaining the necessity of doing so during the course of the debate (purposeless challenge for challenge only). The clash in a competitive debate should be over arguments, not over the definition.

A1 may challenge the revised definition only when it does not conform to the above mentioned rules.

The right of definition is a right (not necessarily a duty) of the affirmative side. If the affirmative side does not provide the definition, this right is passed to the speaker of the negative side. If s/he wants to use this right, s/he can do so provided s/he conforms to the above-mentioned rules.

3.3 The Task of the Affirmative Side

Where the resolution is expressed as a factual one, the affirmative side must prove that resolution holds true in a decisive/persuasive number of cases, which has been specified by the definition (criterion) and accepted by the negative side.

3.4 Who Wins the Debate

The debate is won by the affirmative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it upheld the resolution debated. The debate is won by the negative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it disproved the affirmative case or put it into serious doubt. When the debate is evaluated the “strength” of the arguments is taken into consideration.

The negative speaker does not necessarily have to disagree with all of the steps in the affirmative party’s process of supporting the resolution. As long as it proves the invalidity of the conclusions derived from this process, it still can win the debate.

3.5 Negative Case

The negative side does not have to present its own case in the debate. It should concentrate on attacking the affirmative side’s case. However, if the negative party does decide to present their own case, it is still their task to prove that the affirmative case is not valid and, at the same time, to prove that their own case is valid. It is then the duty of the affirmative side to not only prove their own case, but to also disprove the negative case.

Affirmative and negative cases must be mutually exclusive - they can not coexist side by side and be both valid at the same time.

3.6 Argumentation

Persons should concern themselves with using logical arguments supported by relevant evidence.

3.7 Refutation

The task of the negative side is to refute or put into a serious doubt the affirmative case as a whole.

If the affirmative side has used a number of pieces of evidence to support one argument, and the negative side is able to refute that main point with one counterargument, the negative team can this way refute the whole group of pieces of evidence together. However, to disprove a piece of evidence does not necessarily mean disproving the argument.

3.8 Argument supporting evidence

If the evidence is considered to be generally known, it is not necessary for individual speakers to explicitly prove its reliability. (Basic annotation is still a necessity though.) However, if the party is introducing surprising facts, statistics, etc., it must be ready to prove the authenticity of their evidence to the adjudicators.

3.9 Impromptu Debate

Based on the decision of the organizer, some debates may be impromptu, i.e. the debaters do not know the topic beforehand. The preparation time and procedure for the impromptu debate are determined by the organizer of the debate provided that:

- both parties receive the resolution at the same time;

- both parties are provided with similar preparation conditions.

[Dr T]

So, normal discussion while taking different views would not be of use? It has to be in a format like that? Why?

[CaptainTux]

Normal discussion without a set of rules and structure is just loose discussion. Being forced into a format will keep it short and be a challenge for each of us. I am open to alternative methods, however.

[Jason]

While we're offering links and info: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Good short article on logic and fallacies. (From our favorite website of course.)

[Dr T]

Thanks for the link Jason

[CaptainTux]

An interesting link to say the least.

Part of the logic of some form of structure for a debate, Dr T is to give is a finite timeframe to make our arguments and counterpoints. Otherwise we will have threads that go on and on and get circular and eventually degenerate into semantics

For me, debate is about more than proving my position "right". It is about exchanging thoughts and ideas that differ in a mature and rational method. Such exercises not only help you better understand why you believe what you believe, but it also challenges you to look at another point of view.

To prepare my arguments and counter arguments, I have to anticipate your points....this forces me to analyze the weaknesses in my own rational and either re evaluate or discover more information to firm them up.

Debate and conversation is an art form and a dance that is lost in the United States and few people use these tools to grow anymore.

We no longer seek enlightenment and wisdom and growth, rather, we entrench ourselves into a position that is sometimes based on hyperbole and regurgitation of the thoughts of others with no independent research on our parts as to the veracity of the claims we believe are our own, but are actually the ramblings of others.

[Jason]

Captain,

Well said.

[CaptainTux]

Thank you, sir. Even the blind squirrel gets a nut once in awhile.

[Dr T]

That an interesting idea Capin. I do not see why that criterion (for the most part) cannot be part of a normal conversation. What is the inconvenience of a discussion going on for a long time? Also, you seem to say that you plan on attacking/anticipating what the opponent would say and then go from there. Yet you talk about “We no longer seek enlightenment and wisdom and growth…” Is not this type of discussion that we are proposing toward that end? If we only prepare to “defeat” someone, etc., how is that accomplishing what you hold so dearly?

Thanks

[CaptainTux]

It is very simple. In many debates on moral, philosophical, and religious issues it is EXTREMELY rare for two people to enter into a conversation and have one sway the other to their position. This leaves you with two choices. Give the debate a structured and finite period, or be intellectually dishonest and continue it until the horse is beaten dead and buried.

Of course in a debate I want to win. I believe that it is my position that is correct and yours that is incorrect. In a finite period I am forced to get to the crux of the matter swiftly and lay all my cards on the table. One of a few things will happen with some sub categories.

I will win or I will lose.

If I win, it may be because my position is superior, or it may be that my argument was better, but I had the weaker position. The same is true if I lose. Let's face it. When you play baseball or football or chess...you usually know when you wer outplayed or outplayed the opponent...or when luck came into play.

If I walk away the loser...I have to analyze why. I grow from this. If I win...I SHOULD analyze why. I grow from this.

I like structure and I like finite in such discussions as these. I think if we used more logic like this we would have happier marriages, stronger nation, and more productive work environments. Mrs Tux and I have rules of engagement regarding arguments. Simple things like you cannot drag relatives into the argument or hurl personal insults that degrade the person. Anger is not allowed to hold past bedtime...if that mneans we have to stay up all night...so be it.

It is fun to debate formally. Try it.

Structured debates have forced me to change my view or deeply rethink my view on many things. Abortion, evolution, politics, vouchers for school, death penalty, etc etc etc. There have been times in research I realized I was on the wrong side of the fence on an issue, but I had to fulfill my duty as a competitor and earn points for my team...but walked away with a new persecutive and growth.

[Maureen]

...It is not about proof per se, it is about having the better argument and better position....

CT, have you seen the movie Thank You for Smoking? Your statement above reminded me of this movie. If you haven't seen it, I think you would enjoy it.

A synopsis & critic reviews:

Thank You for Smoking is a fiercely satirical look at today's "culture of spin." The hero of the film is Nick Naylor (Eckhart), chief spokesman for Big Tobacco, who makes his living defending the rights of smokers and cigarette makers in today's neo-puritanical culture. (Fox Searchlight)

Rolling Stone, Peter Travers

Both sides of the political fence will feel royally skewered. All that's lacking is a warning from the Surgeon General: This film will make you laugh till it hurts.

Boston Globe, Ty Burr

Like its protagonist, the movie is smart, soulless, glib, and utterly charming -- just the thing to warm up a movie season that's been late to bloom.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/thankyouforsmoking

M.

[CaptainTux]

I remember the movie coming out and I remember being interested, but I never got around to seeing it.

I do not think one can prove the existence of God, creation, miracles, the correctness of pro life, etc. It really is about having the better position and the better argument. With enough other facts and information to back you up, you can make a better case.