Featured Dishonest Debate Tactic

Whatever our position in a debate we must also thicken our skins because another tactic (which is usually allowed) in the art of debate is the ad hominem tactic : an argument or reaction directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Yes that happens here at the BB which is tolerated within certain limits.

Again the BB is as good a place as any to learn a defense.

HankD

 

That's why logic (and theology) is intended to be done in community. Each person can reason and find whatever flaws may exist, pointing them out for the betterment of all. That's why lists of logical fallacies have been developed to point out common breakdowns in logic. When we hold each other to those known standards, everyone is better for it.

Tentatively, I disagree. Much of what is claimed to be illogical is simply a reflection of the objectors biases or intellectual laziness.

Can you give me some examples of what you were thinking of when you made that assertion? (I could be wrong.)

Faith and logic are not opposed, they are complementary.

That's not a matter of logic, that's an issue of incorrect presuppositions. For those who don't believe in a Being who can control the physical elements of the universe, it is impossible... but the logical conclusion is based on a false premise.

That's also not a logical issue. If the God describes in scripture is acting, it would be illogical if Lazarus was NOT brought to life, health, and raised when he was called by Jesus!

 

When the other side of the argument characterizes your position based on their personal lens in order to place your view in the worst possible light, then tells you and others that is what you believe, then that is dishonest.

 

Spot on, Revmitchell

 

As an objective viewer of some of the debates here at the BB, the opposing sides (e.g. Arminius/Calvin debate) each feel that they themselves are the honest and objective actors and we have all seen many many debates turn into ugly arguments and get shut down.

Honesty and objectivity are virtues that are always self assumed.

My solution: I rarely get involved in more than about a two deep interchange anymore.
Just recently I made an exception and I wish I hadn't.

Perhaps we all need to be aware of the language of subtle and/or oblique ad hominem attacks.

For instance when I see something like the following I know the debate is over:

"An honest reading of (scripture reference) will ... " An underhanded way of saying/presuming that a dishonest reading has been made.

Or - once the labels start flowing I know its going down hill and won't end well.

Just an observation.

HankD

 

No claim was made that truth is discovered EVERY time we put logic into practice.

If our presuppositions are wrong, or we don't bring all relevant facts to bear, then we are going to get a skewed conclusion.

Again, that's the point of reasoning within community. It helps eliminate personal presuppositions and biases.

Logic is a tool for reasoning and is essentially part of mathematics. If you have inaccurate starting figures or are missing certain crucial element, you cannot solve for a correct answer. It will not always reveal issues of value or places where or knowledge is lacking, although it may clarify issues for us to explore and try to gain more data.

You seem to be conflating knowledge and logic.

Again, these are questions of knowledge, not logic. You can engage logic to work through implications of soteriology, but no one should mistake the tool (logic) for the thing it is working upon (knowledge).

Logic doesn't really come to bear in either scenario to any significant degree. Both are issues of knowledge.

 

This is just a portion of who is in view thought. I agree some are intentionally dishonest, but I think most actually think their reasoning is sound.

Here is the thing: I look at it as most draw conclusions on limited information. Because they are predisposed to a particular faith, group, or Theology, they examine that issue through the lens which has been supplied to them. For example, the person going to a fellowship where free will is taught may be, on a regular basis, exposed to verses or passages that indicate man's choosing. Those opposed to it exposed to teaching that centers on God's choosing. And because it is necessary, in Theological Debate, to proof-text (have a Scriptural Basis for) the view, a very reasonable case could be made for both. And that is how most draw conclusions: they present only that which seems to emphasize their own view, but they do not deal with those passages which seem contrary.

Probably the best example is whether salvation can be lost. There are numerous passages which seem to indicate men can lose their salvation. Many who believe salvation cannot be lost center on passages that seem to make this clear, yet, when certain passages are brought up they are unable to reconcile those passages because they do not understand them. The same is true for those who actually use those passage to "prove" salvation can be lost...they simply do not understand the passages. They use them out of context because usually the fellowship where they attend does this. They sit under countless messages where it is taught that, for example, the Christian who commits willful sin can lose their salvation. And when they study, they look for more...proof-texts. And because they are predisposed to a certain view, they are often oblivious to anything that might be seen as dismantling their own view.

And the bottom line is that this is not really a matter of dishonesty, they think they are presenting the Biblical truth. I think most have to take for granted that the leadership they are under is correct, and I doubt very many intentionally sit under leadership they know to be in error. Church-Hopping is an example of people leaving a fellowship because they disagree with what is being taught (though we also see emotion as a leading factor in this too).

As far as OJ, a decision on his guilt or innocence is no different than what we do when we seek truth from Scripture. We examine the evidence, and sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. If there is an emotional attachment, though, the evidence might be overlooked. Again, I don't see that as dishonesty, just poor judgment.


God bless.

 

So you think liberals are "fallen human beings?"



Think about this: you are saying the one that is opposite the "fallen human being" is engaged in malfeasance.


God bless.

 

Okay, since this thread is talking about dishonest debate tactics, I will present an excerpt from a current thread in which the OP makes a statement about myself:

Now no-one has notified me that I am being spoken about, so what would we call this?

I ask the question, and wonder if anyone will be truthful in answering...is this an honest debate tactic? Is he "proving" his OP with this statement? Is this an attack on another member?

All this whining about dishonest debate tactics and yet I wonder if anyone will be honest about this kind of thing, which is a typical tactic, not just of this member, but several.

Amazing.


God bless.

 

lol

Simply means I find your statement, or the issue...funny.

Now, you want to discuss how talking about someone behind their back is an "honest debate tactic?"

And by the way, thanks for proving what I have said...the OP is based on dishonest premise.

I find this thread to be a great illustration of hypocrisy. Nothing funny about that.


God bless.

 

You're making your case by appealing to the most ignorant of people. Yes, the ignorant can be wrong without being dishonest, even when the evidence is decisively against them. But, what of the leadership and people who are exposed to the evidence against their position, but they still argue for what is false? How are such people not dishonest, even if they're being dishonest with themselves, as well.

 

Here is what you said:

The Biblicist said: ↑

You an Darrell have a man made doctrine you must defend regardless of what you have to do with and to scripture to do it. End of story.

Who are you to say my doctrine is man-made? lol

I'm not the one teaching the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is "the public accreditation of the administration of the Church."

You have had several threads in order to justify your arguments, statements, and charges, and while in your mind, you might think you have done that, but...that doesn't mean you have.

Secondly...this is nothing more than back-biting slander. You assume your position is correct, and it has been shown on several occasions your doctrine is contradictory to itself.

But...you are the one being "honest."

And most here on this forum can distinguish the difference between referring to well known advocates of certain doctrines and...making derisive comments behind the backs of people who are members here.

What error is it that you think I should admit to? I should admit my doctrine is man-made? lol

Well, at least you're calling me a liar to my face.

What error have you exposed?

Actually, I would prefer to let others here think about what you are saying, and again thank you for the OP. Not often we get handed on a silver platter someone exposing themselves.




God bless.

 

I'm not making that case at all, Smyth...many people think their views are correct, and honestly think they can "prove" that with Scripture. I have said that several times. That they are ignorant of more information with which to draw conclusions from is irrelevant to their positions from an ethical standpoint. I do not see it as intentionally being dishonest in debate, its just a matter of conviction.

Now think about your own growing in knowledge: is there something you believe now that you didn't before, or something you understand better because of a better knowledge of Scripture as a whole? Were you being dishonest in the previous beliefs/positions you held, or was that simple a result of the level to which you were at when you held those beliefs/convictions/positions?


God bless.