Debate without implicit insult?

[agedman]

It is neat that 12strings strummed a "chord" the was in "tune" with so many who have such divergent views.

His "pitch" to the BB is a reminder that when some would grandly "melismatic" and another "yodel" the "vocalization" should be done in a way the audience appreciates.

I personally have wondered if at times the BB has more "rhythmic" banging and crashing than "melodic" and "harmonic" "motifs."

One just has to understand and keep in mind that there are some posters who are tuning their jug by the amount of spit collected.

 

[percho]

I tell everyone, "People, including myself, are idiots, just try not to be your average idiot".

Still trying to figure out if I am above of below.

 

[Skandelon]

12Strings,

Do you believe it is possible for you to understand my position but reject it? Do you believe it is possible for me to understand your position but reject it?

 

[mandym]

What I'm saying is that even in civil debate, there is the implicit idea that I am correcting someone who is misunderstands a certain issue. The very fact that I reply at all means that I believe the other person is misunderstanding or mis-stating something, and I want to correct them.

This may be what you are doing and it may be the poor attitude you bear when debating but it is not necessary. And what is the worst and most childish attack is to recharacterize someone's position in a way that demeans it like is done so often on this board and is usually the reason for so much contention.

 

[Van]

Yes, I believe a person can understand and reject the truth, whether it is me, blinded by a prior belief in falsehood, or some other person.

For example I believe Christ died for all mankind, because, among other things, I do not believe God chose individuals for salvation before creation. Now if I did, then I could understand that others believe Christ died for all mankind, yet reject that premise based on what I believe the balance of scripture teaches. But I would be wrong.

 

[12strings]

12Strings,

Do you believe it is possible for you to understand my position but reject it? Do you believe it is possible for me to understand your position but reject it?

I would hesitantly say yes, but I don't know if I think it is possible for ME to BELIEVE that you PERFECTLY understand my view...or for YOU to believe that I perfectly understand YOUR view. (if that makes sense).

In the reality of it, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong...therefore by necessity, one of us MISUNDERSTANDS something. I would then argue that by necessity, you believe it is me who misunderstands (election, for example)...and I believe it is you.

I'm saying that stating this fact should NOT BE SEEN AS AN INSULT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY, even though it might possibly be taken as such, as might be seen in a reply something like: "How dare you say I don't understand! You're saying i'm stupid!


So i would repeat:

Do you not, whether spoken or unspoken, assume that calvinists misunderstand election?

And if so, would you say it is "insulting" or "accusatory" for you to assume that, or that it is simply the nature of disagreement, with no insult?

 

[12strings]

I disagree with your premise that it cannot be proved that Calvinists use ad homenim arguments far more than Arminians. All you have to do is pick an Arminian, say Skandelon, and a Calvinist, say Iconoclast, and look at say their last 10 posts. Just count the insults, using your criteria. The result will be night and day.

1. This is simply two people, which may or may not be representative of the whole. If I were to pick a different Calvinists, say Herald...the results might be percieved differently

2. If Icon is your example of an insult-slinging calvinist, then you really need to get out more...there are MUCH meaner calvinists than Icon!

 

[Salty]

... I was told by one member that what ever I said they would take the opposite view. How is that of the Lord?

Obviously he thinks you are wrong 100% of the time, so he thinks by taking the opposite view of you.....
Free, we often disagree, but I trust we can learn from each other.
And when we get to Glory, you will find I was right :smilewinkgrin:

No Free, the thinking of that poster is not of the Lord. We should show him II Tim 2:15

 

[Skandelon]

I would hesitantly say yes, but I don't know if I think it is possible for ME to BELIEVE that you PERFECTLY understand my view...or for YOU to believe that I perfectly understand YOUR view. (if that makes sense).

In the reality of it, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong...therefore by necessity, one of us MISUNDERSTANDS something. I would then argue that by necessity, you believe it is me who misunderstands (election, for example)...and I believe it is you.

I'm saying that stating this fact should NOT BE SEEN AS AN INSULT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY, even though it might possibly be taken as such, as might be seen in a reply something like: "How dare you say I don't understand! You're saying i'm stupid!


So i would repeat:

Do you not, whether spoken or unspoken, assume that calvinists misunderstand election?

And if so, would you say it is "insulting" or "accusatory" for you to assume that, or that it is simply the nature of disagreement, with no insult?

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I would just suggest not using the word 'understand' in place of the word 'affirm.' I believe man can understand truth but choose not to affirm it or act in accordance with it. Instead he can trade that truth in for lies...or refuse to accept it (love it). The fact that he understands it makes him 'without excuse" according to Romans 1.

 

[Van]

1. This is simply two people, which may or may not be representative of the whole. If I were to pick a different Calvinists, say Herald...the results might be percieved differently

2. If Icon is your example of an insult-slinging calvinist, then you really need to get out more...there are MUCH meaner calvinists than Icon!

My point was not to denigrate any particular Calvinist, but rather to point out that Calvinists in general use ad hominem argument. If you read John Calvin's institutes, you will see when he uses such arguments, and if you read the arguments of historical Calvinists, you find the same assertion, if a person does not accept Calvinism, there is something wrong with him or her.

When such argument is employed, the result shifts the discussion off of Calvinism and on to the character and qualifications of the opponent. It deflects the discussion away from the false doctrines of Calvinism.

So your concerns are valid, but the driver is not a general immaturity equally divided on both sides of the A/C debate in my opinion. It is not driven by the qualifications and character of the Calvinists, but by the false doctrine that is being shielded by such tactics.

 

[mandym]

1. This is simply two people, which may or may not be representative of the whole. If I were to pick a different Calvinists, say Herald...the results might be percieved differently

2. If Icon is your example of an insult-slinging calvinist, then you really need to get out more...there are MUCH meaner calvinists than Icon!

So Icon is not as "mean" as others so don't count what he says? And you have to use an insult to make your point that Icon's insult is weaker than others?


See this is the attitude that perpetuates the friction on this board.

 

[12strings]

I believe man can understand truth but choose not to affirm it or act in accordance with it. Instead he can trade that truth in for lies...or refuse to accept it (love it). The fact that he understands it makes him 'without excuse" according to Romans 1.

I agree, but when debating, such as on this forum, This is not your general assumption about those who disagree with you is it? (From your persective...that calvinists understand that election is corporate, but they reject that truth or refuse to accept it?) I have never heard you say this, and don't believe it is what you have been saying.

Or do you rather assume that they have simply been taught a different view, and therefore do not adequetly understand the issues...because if they did, they would come over to your side?

 

[12strings]

Mandym, I've waited to reply to these because I wasn't really sure how, and I wasn't really sure what you were taking issue with, but here goes:

So Icon is not as "mean" as others so don't count what he says? And you have to use an insult to make your point that Icon's insult is weaker than others?

See this is the attitude that perpetuates the friction on this board.

Though I can see that I failed....I was trying hard not to make this an insult on Icon, I actually disagree with Van's assesment of Icon, and think he generally Posts issue-related things without personal attacks. SO I appoloze, Icon, for perpetuating you as an example of a "mean" calvinists. I don't think you are.

Good grief now we are excusing the attacks on others and now we should just dress them up. Maybe instead of statements like "you do not understand" or "God has not yet given it to you to understand" we can avoid statements like that all together and just disagree with supporting scripture. These caricatures of each other are not necessary.

-I am not attempting to excuse attacks...I am attempting to simply state that the very action of disagreeing with someone implies that you assume they are wrong, in other words, that they misunderstand some point of the issue at hand.

This may be what you are doing and it may be the poor attitude you bear when debating but it is not necessary. And what is the worst and most childish attack is to recharacterize someone's position in a way that demeans it like is done so often on this board and is usually the reason for so much contention.

If you believe I have some pessimistic view of debating that is not necessary, I woulD ask you this:

When you debate someone who disagrees with you on this forum, do you not beleive they are wrong? Do you not believe they misunderstand some part of the debated issue? All I'm saying is that assumption is implicit everytime we post something contrary to another person's opinion.


p.s.

I see now that my summary statement was not the best choice of words:

12STRINGS "Can any debate exist without at least implicit insult to those who hold the opposing view?

My answer: No, but that means we should be all the more careful to insult each other with civility and graciousness."

What I was trying to say is this: Some people would consider it an insult if you told them, "You just don't understand this." BUT... anytime you disagree or debate with someone, you are implying this very thing. I don't see how it is avoidable... Therefore, we should be extra careful with our words not to add to that "insult" of implying that our opponent does not understand.

 

[mandym]

Mandym, I've waited to reply to these because I wasn't really sure how, and I wasn't really sure what you were taking issue with, but here goes:



Though I can see that I failed....I was trying hard not to make this an insult on Icon, I actually disagree with Van's assesment of Icon, and think he generally Posts issue-related things without personal attacks. SO I appoloze, Icon, for perpetuating you as an example of a "mean" calvinists. I don't think you are.



-I am not attempting to excuse attacks...I am attempting to simply state that the very action of disagreeing with someone implies that you assume they are wrong, in other words, that they misunderstand some point of the issue at hand.



If you believe I have some pessimistic view of debating that is not necessary, I woulD ask you this:

When you debate someone who disagrees with you on this forum, do you not beleive they are wrong? Do you not believe they misunderstand some part of the debated issue? All I'm saying is that assumption is implicit everytime we post something contrary to another person's opinion.


p.s.

I see now that my summary statement was not the best choice of words:
What I was trying to say is this: Some people would consider it an insult if you told them, "You just don't understand this." BUT... anytime you disagree or debate with someone, you are implying this very thing. I don't see how it is avoidable... Therefore, we should be extra careful with our words not to add to that "insult" of implying that our opponent does not understand.

I do not believe it has to be the implication. How one approaches debate decides that. If one is debating simply to prove others wrong then that will be the implication. And many but especially Calvies cannot debate without agenda. Maybe everyone who does this should find a better reason to debate. For this motivation is what causes the conflict. With this motivation there is not real interest in the view of others but only to beat someone down and be right.

The alternative is to take an interest in the debate response of those we choose to go back and forth with. This becomes difficult when a few comes along with unorthodox views or their post is not made with integrity. But there would be far less conflict if we didn't make posts like "I wouldn't want to be called a dispy either". Or (and I paraphrase) "If your do not preach election (as cavlies understand it) then you are not preaching the gospel". Or "(and I paraphrase) " if you do not believe in the calvies view of election you are not saved". Others are "you do not have the spiritual capacity to understand anything" or "you blasphemer".

These people are just plain straight out looking for a fight and to provoke others. These types of posts are the brunt of what cause so much unnecessary conflict on this board and why people are wanting to leave.

By the way I believe JohnofJapan is a very good example of everything I am saying we should do.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree, but when debating, such as on this forum, This is not your general assumption about those who disagree with you is it? (From your persective...that calvinists understand that election is corporate, but they reject that truth or refuse to accept it?) I have never heard you say this, and don't believe it is what you have been saying.

Or do you rather assume that they have simply been taught a different view, and therefore do not adequetly understand the issues...because if they did, they would come over to your side?

You have a point. Many Cals do seem to think we all believe the 'foresight faith' view and few SEEM to know of the corporate view of election. But once that is explained I don't believe they have to accept it in order to understand it.

 

[Iconoclast]

So Icon is not as "mean" as others so don't count what he says? And you have to use an insult to make your point that Icon's insult is weaker than others?


See this is the attitude that perpetuates the friction on this board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12strings
1. This is simply two people, which may or may not be representative of the whole. If I were to pick a different Calvinists, say Herald...the results might be percieved differently

2. If Icon is your example of an insult-slinging calvinist, then you really need to get out more...there are MUCH meaner calvinists than Icon!


So Icon is not as "mean" as others so don't count what he says? And you have to use an insult to make your point that Icon's insult is weaker than others?

Mandy..... I agree with 12 strings here! Herald does exhibit more grace and wisdom in His posts....and I enjoy his responses and am willing to receive correction biblically.
Some of my posts have gone into sinful excess....but not all of them. I tend to go at those on the attack of cals,and their doctrine when it opposes truth.
That is not my first choice...I would rather discuss things on a biblical level....but it seems that sometimes those in opposition want to become more personal in their attacks because they cannot answer to truth.
If I or any other cal posts truth......the further someone is from that truth...the more hostile is the return personal attack.
In posts where I have failed in my responses.....if you look ....it was in response to a personal attack trying to reduce what I posted biblically.
This is not always a wise thing to do.....as Herald,12 strings, Archangel,jbh28, and several others might be smoother in their response.
Jesus is the perfect example of what to do....but i often fall well short of this.I have noticed others fall short of this as well.

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously

 

[mandym]

Mandy..... I agree with 12 strings here! Herald does exhibit more grace and wisdom in His posts....and I enjoy his responses and am willing to receive correction biblically.

I don't know anything about Herald. We were not discussing him.

I tend to go at those on the attack of cals,and their doctrine when it opposes truth.
That is not my first choice...I would rather discuss things on a biblical level....but it seems that sometimes those in opposition want to become more personal in their attacks because they cannot answer to truth.
If I or any other cal posts truth......the further someone is from that truth...the more hostile is the return personal attack.

You bring up another point. Attacks made because we thing we can know the motivation of others. That may be what you would like to believe but you do not really know it unless they give it.

a personal attack trying to reduce what I posted biblically.

I don't know what that means.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know anything about Herald. We were not discussing him.

mandy...look up his posts...they are very solid


You bring up another point. Attacks made because we thing we can know the motivation of others. That may be what you would like to believe but you do not really know it unless they give it.

I will list what I mean in awhile...but generally they are the proverbial ad homeins....spoken of earlier....I must make a delivery now...be back on in a bit........
I don't know what that means.

I will demonstarate it shortly....you will know it when you see it:love2:

 

[saturneptune]

Can any debate exist without at least implicit insult to those who hold the opposing view?

My answer: No, but that means we should be all the more careful to insult each other with civility and graciousness.

REASONING:

It was recently pointed out that those on one side of a debate (Cals) often say that the opposing side (non-cals) do not understand election, or don't grasp some other vital biblical truth, necessarily implying that their understanding is therefore deficient. THAT'S AN INSULT RIGHT THERE!

Conversely, Armininas will say that the cals are the ones who don't understand election, or grasp some basic bibilical truth, and therefore necessarily imply that the cals understanding is deficient. (ANOTHER IMPLICIT INSULT).

My point is that if you say that someone missunderstands a point of debate, you are implicitly making a statement about either their up-bringing, their intellegence, their willingness to see the truth, or their ability to see the truth.

I would argue that such implicite insults are unavoidable in debate, and should not be taken as personal attacks (even though technically, they might be).

I would additionally argue that because implicit assumptions about the deficient understanding of the opponent are part of the debate process, we should be extra careful not to exacerbate the problem by adding attacks on character or intent. SOME EXAMPLES:

-A gracious debater will say "I believe you do not understand election." rather than, "You are twisting scriptures!" (The first could be taken as an insult by some thin-skinned debater, but the second HAS to be taken as a personal attack on the INTENT of the opponent...we should give one another every benefit of the doubt when it comes to what we believe to the motive of our debate opponents.

So if you're a Calvinists, realize that the arminians are not conspiring together to bring down the soverighnty of God.

And if you are an arminian, realize that the Calvinists are not trying to set up a new geneve in which we burn to death everyone who disagrees with us.

(Just sit back, relax, and realize anyone who disagrees with you simply has "deficiencies in understanding")

:laugh:


--> I welcome any opposing view as to the nature of debate...Can we debate without ANY implicit insults, or not?

I think this is a very well thought out op. I agree in general. The nature of debate, when debating in good faith, results in a difference of opinion and phrases that could imply an insult. I do not view this catagory as mean, uncivil, or manipulative, but rather, a progression of an exchange of ideas. In this mindset, I do not think the implied insults are meant to harm the other poster. The vast majority of these threads are just good natured jabs back and forth..

Having said that, there is another catagory of thread that is not truly a debate thread. They are very easy to spot. They are mean, vicious, and demeaning in their very purpose for being created. They are started by trolls, flamers, and those who enjoy irritating people for the joy of watching them get angry. There has been a whole series of these as of late.

These are two distinct catagories, and have nothing in common.

 

[Van]

Notice 12 Strings, we are now discussing people and not principles.