Dishonest Debate Tactic

[JonC]

Evidence and logic is the same for the people on either side of a debate. Since they don't agree, at least one side is ignoring evidence or logic, which is dishonest. The evidence and logic may not be clear, so maybe both sides are being honest, but I think most things are pretty clear most of the time.

I don't believe it true that “logic” itself is objective because not only is it a systematic product of human reasoning and observation (logically.......human logic cannot be more accurate than the cognitive abilities behind the logic) but in these types of discussion over and over again Scripture presents truth as transcending and sometimes in opposition to human logic.

We live by faith and not by sight. I do not believe this is merely an expression of anticipation, but also a truth of limited human comprehension. For example, I can argue logically that Peter could never have walked on water. Logically a man who is dead cannot be called out of a tomb three days later. His organs would not even function. Logically, Lazarus must have only appeared to have been dead.

My disagreement is that I believe that there is not always one single logical conclusion. I also do not believe that the real conclusion is always the “logical” one. So I do not believe that one side of the debate is dishonest to the argument, nor do I believe the person behind the argument to necessarily be dishonest in the engagement.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't believe it true that “logic” itself is objective because not only is it a systematic product of human reasoning and observation (logically.......human logic cannot be more accurate than the cognitive abilities behind the logic) ...

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.

...but in these types of discussion over and over again Scripture presents truth as transcending and sometimes in opposition to human logic.

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.)

We live by faith and not by sight.

Faith and logic are not opposed, they are complementary.

For example, I can argue logically that Peter could never have walked on water.

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.

Logically a man who is dead cannot be called out of a tomb [four] days later. His organs would not even function. Logically, Lazarus must have only appeared to have been dead.

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't believe it true that “logic” itself is objective because not only is it a systematic product of human reasoning and observation (logically.......human logic cannot be more accurate than the cognitive abilities behind the logic) but in these types of discussion over and over again Scripture presents truth as transcending and sometimes in opposition to human logic.

We live by faith and not by sight. I do not believe this is merely an expression of anticipation, but also a truth of limited human comprehension. For example, I can argue logically that Peter could never have walked on water. Logically a man who is dead cannot be called out of a tomb three days later. His organs would not even function. Logically, Lazarus must have only appeared to have been dead.

My disagreement is that I believe that there is not always one single logical conclusion. I also do not believe that the real conclusion is always the “logical” one. So I do not believe that one side of the debate is dishonest to the argument, nor do I believe the person behind the argument to necessarily be dishonest in the engagement.

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.

 

[Van]

Spot on, Revmitchell

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree. But even holding each other to those known standards does not mean that our "logical conclusions" are completely objective and perfectly correct.

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.)

I agree that much of what is claimed to be illogical is simply a reflection of the objectors biases or intellectual laziness. We often unknowingly bring presuppositions into the debate, and sometimes we see only one logical possibility when in fact there may be more (or we don't fully understand the other position).

One example is soteriological "logical orders". Different theories have varying strengths and weaknesses (often depending on one's higher focus...i.e., providence, grace, etc.). Balancing human responsibility and divine sovereignty may be another example depending on the argument. There are issues where our logic does not fully work out a solid objective conclusion that is beyond question or debate.

Faith and logic are not opposed, they are complementary.

I agree that they are not necessarily opposed. But I do believe that we rely on faith and not logic (ultimately) except in working out what God has revealed to us. Our logic, and our reasoning, are God given tools that we can use to know God fuller. But there is a difference between knowing God and knowing about God. I do not think that God has revealed a definite "logical order" when it comes to how He constructed his redemptive plan. Such may be present in our understanding and theories, but in truth it is beyond our comprehension. But we still think in such terms because that is how we comprehend. Ultimately, however, it is faith that prevails (I cannot stand firmly on my understanding of whether God elected out of fallen man or if election was logically pre-Fall...but I can think in terms of both to understand what God has revealed).

I hope that helps explain my thoughts when I wrote the post.

Edited: I'm editing my posts to explain my comment a bit more:

When I say that logically men don't walk on water or rise from the dead, I don't mean necessarily that God's works are opposed to logic. What I mean is that the counter argument (for example, that Lazarus is a Christian myth) is not necessarily illogical (although it may be wrong).

 

[JonC]

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.

And that happens much too often here. Some people seem merely to want to argue, so they "invent" a straw-man out of a characterization of the other argument. I've had some go around for months arguing against me about what I "really" believe. I agree, that is dishonest.

 

[The Biblicist]

A spirit of honesty and objectivity is required for a sincere and honest debate with regard to God's Word. Diversion, ridicule, straw men, etc. tactics characterize a dishonest debate and a dishonest debater. I could care less about secular debate tactics as they have no place among professing Christians in dealing with the Word of God. I am talking about those who claim to be true believers in Christ and who are committed to handling the word of God properly as inspired, and holy with fear and reverence due to whose word it actually is.

 

[HankD]

A spirit of honesty and objectivity is required for a sincere and honest debate with regard to God's Word. Diversion, ridicule, straw men, etc. tactics characterize a dishonest debate and a dishonest debater. I could care less about secular debate tactics as they have no place among professing Christians in dealing with the Word of God. I am talking about those who claim to be true believers in Christ and who are committed to handling the word of God properly as inspired, and holy with fear and reverence due to whose word it actually is.

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

I agree. But even holding each other to those known standards does not mean that our "logical conclusions" are completely objective and perfectly correct.

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.

I agree that much of what is claimed to be illogical is simply a reflection of the objectors biases or intellectual laziness. We often unknowingly bring presuppositions into the debate, and sometimes we see only one logical possibility when in fact there may be more (or we don't fully understand the other position).

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

One example is soteriological "logical orders". Different theories have varying strengths and weaknesses (often depending on one's higher focus...i.e., providence, grace, etc.). Balancing human responsibility and divine sovereignty may be another example depending on the argument. There are issues where our logic does not fully work out a solid objective conclusion that is beyond question or debate.

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.

But there is a difference between knowing God and knowing about God.

You seem to be conflating knowledge and logic.

I do not think that God has revealed a definite "logical order" when it comes to how He constructed his redemptive plan. Such may be present in our understanding and theories, but in truth it is beyond our comprehension. But we still think in such terms because that is how we comprehend. Ultimately, however, it is faith that prevails (I cannot stand firmly on my understanding of whether God elected out of fallen man or if election was logically pre-Fall...but I can think in terms of both to understand what God has revealed).

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).

When I say that logically men don't walk on water or rise from the dead, I don't mean necessarily that God's works are opposed to logic. What I mean is that the counter argument (for example, that Lazarus is a Christian myth) is not necessarily illogical (although it may be wrong).

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

 

[Darrell C]

People who use poor logic usually do so out dishonesty. I'm not talking about individuals who may be feeble in thought, but about ideological leaders and those who have been through rigorous debate.

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.

There are some great philosophical and theological questions, but most things are rather simple. OJ did it.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

One of the tactics of a fallen human being who wants to win an argument is to charge their opponent with whatever malfeasance the accuser is engaged in.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree to an extent. Where I disagree is where you seem to blend (rightly so, IMHO) logic and knowledge. First of all, logic as a tool for reasoning as essentially a part of mathematics does not elevate logic as a process above human knowledge (if that is the right word....maybe human cognitive ability?). It is evaluated and accepted under the auspice of human understanding (both in terms of a process and in terms of it's conclusions).

Second, as you point out community helps eliminate personal presuppositions and biases. Some of these, however, are not necessarily individual presuppositions and biases. There are methods of thought, shared ideologies, worldviews, etc. that contribute to discernment even in community. I understand that this may not constitute "logic" itself, but IMHO such static cannot be separated from the conclusions that we reach.

For example - In terms of Christian debate, we also add to the raw data what is by necessary presupposed (what is not known but reasonably concluded) of ancient cultures which can lead to various conclusions (granted the logic may be the same). In other words, I am not talking about a process such as mathematics with the numbers being wrong but the entire process as a whole with the answers being questionable (I understand your emphasis on pure logic as a process, but I am speaking of logical conclusions and insisting that there are often differences where several "logical conclusions" are just as logically valid).

 

[Darrell C]

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:

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Some consistently in almost every post use "lol" after nearly every statement which indicates ridicule. However, when accused of ridicule they respond they were genuinely expressing humor. However, their contextual response that accompanies "lol" is not humorous but personally cutting and insultive, thus their words betray them and prove they are lying in spite of their consistent denials. When "lol" is used so consistently with regard to things they openly revile, someone is lying when they deny they are using "lol" as a form of ridicule.

 

[Darrell C]

Some consistently in almost every post use "lol" after nearly every statement which indicates ridicule. However, when accused of ridicule they respond they were genuinely expressing humor. However, their contextual response that accompanies "lol" is not humorous but personally cutting and insultive, thus their words betray them and prove they are lying in spite of their consistent denials. When "lol" is used so consistently with regard to things they openly revile, someone is lying when they deny they are using "lol" as a form of ridicule.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

Since when is it a dishonest debate tactic to identify two persons who take the same position and it is a matter of public record. Nearly everyone on this forum has referred to men like John MacArthur, WT Wright, etc. as taking a certain position but I doubt anyone on this forum first contacted these men and said we are quoting your names and using them to identify with a certain theological perspective.

However, your post does illustrate another insincere tactic. Instead of admitting to error, just find something you can use to attack the one exposing your error, thus concealing your error and refusing to be honest. You might think about that!

 

[Smyth]

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.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Since when is it a dishonest debate tactic to identify two persons who take the same position and it is a matter of public record.

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."

Nearly everyone on this forum has referred to men like John MacArthur, WT Wright, etc. as taking a certain position but I doubt anyone on this forum first contacted these men and said we are quoting your names and using them to identify with a certain theological perspective.

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.

However, your post does illustrate another insincere tactic. Instead of admitting to error, just find something you can use to attack the one exposing your error, thus concealing your error and refusing to be honest.

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?

You might think about that!

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.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

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.