SingleDad, need your help on debating

Great Debates
1

Okay, not sure where to post this, so I am shooting for here.

< Warning this is related to another thread, Logical Fallacies, but a different direction, oh and CalifBoomer is the main reason I bring this up >

Under this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001808.html Calif basically states that because DavidB, as an atheist and I as a theist can’t possibly call into question George W Bush’s (or any politician for that matter) ability to lie when their religious belief system is completely against it.

In my layman’s terms of debate whether or not you believe in the topic at issue, does not preclude you from having qualified knowledge.

I guess what I am saying is; being a Christian in this topic is not paramount to whether or not David or I have the ability to discern what is correct in how a politician conducts themselves and calls into question his character based on a set of beliefs this politician claims to have.

Ack, not sure if that makes sense.

Since your Logical Fallacies thread went over my head in many ways, I guess I am trying to get to the debate of debating in a simple way.

For example, the written documentation in this case is the Bible, is rejected by myself as a belief system yet I have knowledge of it. Doesn’t the assumption that if I have knowledge of the written words mean I have some basis with which to enter into a debate regarless of my faith in it?

I often find that people tend to let more emotion come into play rather than the facts or commonly held observations, as we know them, to be at issue. The act of debating at that point no longer is a debate. To me this means a person focuses on an internal use of debate to give them a boost in ego or a sense of “I am right, you are wrong, therefore your knowledge which may be based on fact is no longer valid.”

I really hope that came out right…it’s hard to edit and fully read this in the confines of the little box I have to write this in. I wish there was a preview button.

2

You can always write long posts in Notepad, Wordpad, Emacs, or some other text editor, then paste it into the little box. UBB just doesn’t seem to have been designed with Great Debates in mind.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith

3

LOL Waterj, I know that, but for some reason I continue to post directly in this little box.

4

techchick68, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to CalifBoomer. Nobody else does.

5

Hardcore,

I am bringing this up, based on Calif’s postings because there are many who do the same although not to degree of Calif.

Quite often, and look through the Pit, a debate ends up a mud slinging session, so using his extreme postings (although he occasionally throws in some worthy posts) as an example is the best I can come up with to get the debate of debating going.

6

To answer the OP, generally speaking, anyone capable of rational thought has the standing to debate a proposition derived from a rational system of thought.

One should, however, agree on the fundamental premises of the system. For instance, when I debate Christian theology, I accept the fundamental principle that God exists (at least for the purpose of the debate).

Figuring out which fundamental premises should be adhered to is a subtle business and sometimes emerges from the debate.

Certainly rational theology can be understood even by an atheist; they can certainly determine if a proposition correctly derives from the fundamental premise of the existence of the Christian God as described by the Bible.

Boomer’s claim that DavidB lacks standing (the right engage in the argument) over Dubya’s “hypocrisy” is incorrect. Specifically, it’s an ad hominem fallacy: DavidB’s arguments are incorrect because he adheres to a particular philosophy.

However, whether or not DavidB’s assertion is correct does depend in part on an understanding of Christian theology. Specifically DavidB’s argument depends on the following chain of reasoning:

Premise: Lying is a “sin” in the Christian Religion.

Observation 1: Dubya has claimed to be an environmentalist.

Observation: Dubya has taken anti-environmental actions in his official capacity as Governor of Texas.

Observation: Dubya has claimed to adhere to the Christian moral code, specifically the prohibition against lying.

Deduction: Dubya is a liar.

Deduction: Dubya has committed a sin.

Deduction: Dubya is a hypocrite.

This argument is open to refutation on a number of fronts. Specifically:

Is the premise correct? Is lying truly a sin (i.e. prohibited by the Christian moral code)?

Are the observations correct? Are the “anti-envronmental” actions truly thus, or have the actions been taken out of context? Does Dubya really adhere to the Christian moral code?

Does the rational determination of hypocrisy apply to the Christian moral code? Or does “faith” justify compromising the code for a “higher purpose”?

Any of these points can be rationally debated.

The zealot does take this approach: He does not seek to persuade others to his views by rational debate; rather, he represents himself as holding the absolute truth. To be “correct”, one must merely agree with his assertions. To disagree, by definition, is to show an inferior mental ability and corrupt moral character.

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

7

Well, I was never on the Debate Team, but I do know that you don’t have to personally believe one side of a debate in order to debate it. That’s why we have the “Devil’s Advocate”. If you had to actually believe something before you debated it, where would that leave all those earnest high school debates concerning legalization of marijuana and the death penalty? Nobody I knew was ever actually “for” the death penalty or “against” the legalization of marijuana, but if no one took those positions, you wouldn’t have had a debate.

CalifBoomer just likes to swing his rubber chicken around.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

8

Nice try, but no cigar, Fidel. Once again you are extrapolating a meaning from something I did not say. I did not say that the Great Simian Guru, aka David B., had no right to engage the argument.

I said that David B’s use of the concept of sin for the purpose of criticizing GWB was disingenuous. David is an atheist. He does not recognize the validity of sin. Sin is irrelevent to David. By using an irrelevent concept, he has invalidated his argument.

::

9

SingleDad,

I am confused.

Quite often when reading your posts, even though I am intelligent according to my psychiatrist, I become lost because of:

  1. My reading comprehension
  2. My lack of dictionary knowledge
  3. Because of how I think, spatially rather than logically

Dubya, I assume is Bush or proposed to be him.

Therefore, under rational debate with regards to my example, DavidB and I are not out of line to propose that we or anyone for that matter have a right to debate his character, regardless of our religious affilliations. Based on what we know as fact within the confines of the Christian religion and Bush’s claim of being a Christian, we are pointing out the problems with his actions versus what he “claims” to have faith in.

He says he believes, but his actions go against those beliefs therefore the character comes into question. Does that make sense? The debate is not about Christianity, but about a person who creates a persona of a good religious person, yet in fact does things that are different.

A debate, in terms of academics, tends to be well researched and well thought out. Most think of the ifs, and or buts, right? I 'spose that is what I am getting at. I guess in a message board this is something that we must consider to not be the case as the nature of the internet is instantaneous.

Personally, I try hard to think out my posts and be reasonable enough to work through what message I am trying to convey, the latest is a pure example of such: http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001809.html

Libertarian and I have very strong beliefs in our philosophy, but this is probably the first time I have called him on something I felt to be wrong, libertarian philosophy wise. Hopefully I came across as thinking clearly and pointing out to him not that he was wrong, but why the OP was against what we believe in and hopefully to rethink his position.

Debating is a potentially volatile situation I 'spose, no matter what one says and on the internet it’s too easy to hit the send button.

BTW, it takes me a very long time to post GD topics…sometimes after a long time of getting the words out, I cancel it for fear of not making my point shown in a rational manner…

But I am gonna post this one anyway :slight_smile:

BTW, I remember your sig line, that was a good episode

10

CalifBoomer’s use of the concept of logic for the purpose of criticizing David is ridiculous. Calif is a troll. He does not recognize the validity of logic. Logic is irrelevent to Calif. By using an irrelevent concept, he has invalidated his argument.

11

I agree. This is David’s pro-forma, his modus-operandi.

::

12

hardcore:

Not only a subjective judgement, but an ad hominem attack, as such, worthless.

Thank you for participating. Bring in the next contestant, please.

::

13

Just trying to imitate my idol…you.

14

Stop the bickering!

This was meant as a debate on debating, not a Pit thing.

I am questioning they ins and outs of debating, using Calif as an example because there are many out there like him.

I am not saying his mode is correct, in fact I think he is wrong in how he proposes ideas. But I am trying to get to the bottom of what is rational debate…

15

It doesent matter what you say, but how you say it and wether the majority will listen to reason.

16

David’s argument was that GWB is a hypocrite. His reasoning was that GWB lied, GWB claims to be a Christian, and Christianity holds lying to be a sin, thus GWB is hypocritical in his statements. DavidB’s religion is not part of this debate. In order for you to show that the argument is invalid, you have to disprove the argument itself. The source of the argument is irrelevant.

Incidentally, this means that by bringing DavidB’s religious beliefs into a debate on the hypocracy of GWB, you are using an irrelevant concept, and thus, by your logic, invalidating your argument.

17

I apologize, techchick68. I was simply trying to point out that CalifBoomer typically will not play by the “rules” of a rational debate, so using him as an example is fruitless.

But now that I think about it, quoting him as an example of what not to do is a fine technique, so carry on! I promise to refrain from any further childishness.

18

Not hardly. If the substance of David B’s argument is comprised of concepts he does not recognize, it follows the argument is unsubstantiated as well.

Furthermore, David B. is making the assumption that GWB judges his own words as lies and therefore ‘sin.’ You must first demonstrate that GWB willfully violated his own moral code before you presume to use that violation to indict him.

In any event, if you do not recognize the violation as such, your argument is worthless on its face.

::

19

Calif,

I guess what I am getting at with your responses to many debates and in specific to DavidB’s topic is this:

Yes, DavidB is an atheist

Yes, DavidB brought up the inconsistancy of Bush’s Christian beliefs

Yes, Under the guise of Christianity, lying is a sin

A belief is something you hold dear to your heart and in your actions you work as hard as possible to live under the beliefs you have.

Yes, sin is irrevelent under atheist thinking, but the idea that one person is so outspoken about a belief system and the outcome of their actions go against it, it still brings to light the person’s character.

Politicians, clergy people, celebraties and the like should either put up or shut up when it comes to these issues.

Yes, they are human, but they live in an arena that should be looked upon as leaders, and uphold their own beliefs as strongly as possible.

Clinton is 'sposedly a Christian, but according to public record, he acts like a heathen in the eyes of what he touts as his beliefs. He goes through the motions of acting like a Christian, but doesn’t live that way.

These are people that lead our nation and set an example.

But the debate, Calif, seems to have been (for you) focused more on a person’s religious beliefs rather than the context with which David proposed his question.

In that post, I believe he is taking his beliefs aside and asking the question which any person of any religious or non-religious sway should ask.

It really has nothing to do with his (David’s) belief system but is questioning Bush’s claims of such. Much like a thinking person should do. Step back from their beliefs and look at the situation as a complete outsider.

Honestly Calif, that is how most people that I know debate a topic. They set aside an emotional response, although I can’t say David’s wasn’t, and look at the facts.

The fact here is, Bush is a Christian, in the Bible he claims to have as faith in says not to lie, under his term as governor he has lied. My possible deductions here are:

Bush lies about his faith.
Bush possibly uses his claims of faith for political gain.
Bush honestly has no recollection of his promises.
Bush needs to use a pad and paper to record his promises.
Bush only uses what he needs from a faith he claims.

There are many deductions, but again as politician if he says it, there is no room for faltering.

Did I ramble? If I did I apologize, but the matter is that I find many debates tend to get lost in emotional responses on the boards.

20

Dubya is short for double-u, Bush’s middle initial.

Your argument is that GWB is not acting according to his beliefs. Your beliefs are not relevant to this argument. If CB believes that as a Christian he understands GWB’s beliefs better than either of you, he must point out where you are wrong. He cannot just say that you are wrong because you do not share the same beliefs as GWB. One sure sign of a debater who knows that his argument is weak is that he doesn’t refute the opposing argument on its own merits.

Yes, your argument makes sense. Rational counterarguments could point out that you are mistaken in thinking that lying is a sin, that you are mistaken in thinking that one sin makes someone a hypocrite, that you are mistaken in thinking that GWB lied, etc. Not that any of the above are correct, they are just examples of valid points to argue about, assuming that they could be supported.

FWIW, as a fellow libertarian, I agreed with what you wrote, although Lib is certainly better researched on libertarian philosophy than I am, and I’m interested in seeing his response.
[/quote]

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith