Dishonest Debate Tactics

[Hidden In Him]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

 

[GracePeace]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

LOL Thanks for posting this!

 

[Grailhunter]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

Agreed and agreed. Great job HIH,
What you have here are the details of the official rules of debate.

Some debates are about resolution...as in action. Which is different than what happens on the forum here.

Beyond that....
Official debate structures vary, but this is a general overview.

It starts with picking a topic and then issuing a written statement that picks a position on the topic and from there the debate teams are divided up as to who agrees and who disagrees.

A formal debate usually involves three designated groups: one supporting the proposed position (affirmative team), one opposing the proposed position (opposing team), and a person or group who are judging the accuracy and existence of the evidence presented, clarity, and conduct. (Facilitator or facilitating group)

Beyond this official debates do limit the length and number of responses and set a time limit.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Agreed and agreed. Great job HIH,
What you have here are the details of the official rules of debate.

What happens on the forums is a free-for-all, so you basically have to police them yourself.

That usually doesn't go over well, so discussions about theology devolve into discussions about debate and who isn't playing fair, Lol.

It's a battleground in more ways than just theologically.

 

[JohnDB]

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
I like this one...

 

[Heart2Soul]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

Yes I see this alot! Probably guilty of it myself.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes I see this alot! Probably guilty of it myself.

I think there are a few people who would SAY I am guilty of some of it...

but I'm not, LoL. (at least not in my humble opinion anyway).

 

[Heart2Soul]

I think there are a few people who would SAY I am guilty of some of it...

but I'm not, LoL. (at least not in my humble opinion anyway).

Well how can you play by the rules when your opposition refuses to play.
Just kidding....but to be honest there has been a lot of moderating going on today over this very thing.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
I like this one...

That looks pretty clever!

I'm guessing they don't pass those out at Junior Highs and High Schools nowadays, LoL.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Well how can you play by the rules when your opposition refuses to play.
Just kidding....but to be honest there has been a lot of moderating going on today over this very thing.

Like I was saying, you stop the game and discuss how they are cheating. Loads of fun, Lol.

 

[JohnDB]

That looks pretty clever!

I'm guessing they don't pass those out at Junior Highs and High Schools nowadays, LoL.

We got everything from "No true Scotsman" to the majority being Red Herrings. Then there's the whole out and out lies proposed as truth using "No Higher Authority" of some schmuck's website. We got everything here...no carefully constructed cases using logic and sound hermeneutics.

So...since there is no intent of trying to have an honest discussion of scriptures by anyone I have seen here...I don't bother debating or discussing with most on this site. Now other topics...like the original color of Huey Lewis's hair...ok...all there for that.
Trading stocks and other current events? Maybe.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Now other topics...like the original color of Huey Lewis's hair...ok...all there for that.

I tend to bow out for that, LoL. But yes, it's certainly there if one is truly desperate...

So...since there is no intent of trying to have an honest discussion of scriptures by anyone I have seen here...I don't bother debating or discussing with most on this site.

I've had a few come around - ones that used to irritate me badly, but have since turned into good discussion partners, so I think it can sometimes be a matter of learning how to adapt to people.

The ones who still aggravate me some (and there are many, but I'm learning to deal with it better now) are the ones who get all heated in debate, and then when you ask them a question that flies in the face of their argument they go deathly quiet, but still remain defiant, and want to continue the debate WITHOUT addressing your post.

That bothers me.... to say the least, LoL. But such is forum life. But there are some good ones here to discuss things with. Just depends on the topic and where they stand on that particular issue compared to you.

 

[TheslightestID]

I've noticed a few posters making accusations up out of thin air, and when asked to simply prove those accusations, they go silent.

But in the end, such actions are very telling, in that they know they are on the losing end of the debate if they have to take such dishonest measures.

 

[Grailhunter]

I think there are a few people who would SAY I am guilty of some of it...

but I'm not, LoL. (at least not in my humble opinion anyway).

No one is perfect but thanks for posting the rules....it gives everyone a benchmark.

 

[Nancy]

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
I like this one...

I like it too, saving it :)
They could all fall under the subheading: "manipulation".

 

[TrueIsraelite]

sharing this message here. pray all Christian zionists wake up.

Christian ID is the truth. scofield ref. bible turned many ppl into zionists. 6 day war, uss liberty. (have you even heard of the uss liberty?) he was supervised by zionists while writing and was not an outstanding person himself. you cannot deny the bible prophecies that the Saxons fulfilled vs what a minority group has fulfilled. im 23 & learned the word subversion 3 years ago. what do you encounter when you get to the root of subversion? international zionists, bolsheviks, atheists, and devil ppl. from ww1 to covid, its all been money. i cannot understand how you could have a highschool diploma and not see the INTENTIONAL DEBT our country puts itself into. the federal reserve is not federal nor has reserves. if nothing happens, our posterity will continue to pay off our foreign aid debts to countries that hate us. our own ZOG controlled government hates the very people that created the greatest country & uses colored people as weapons against us. look at Israel's border wall & look at ours. Africans float on literal trash today meanwhile we made sails centuries ago. all recent military has been fighting for the zionists- i forgive you and pray for you. 9/11 is just a glimpse of what these ppl will do to bank in on more $, fear, control, and to advance their fake prophecies. how much muslim hate did that bring? so much! im not even kidding, i used to hate arabs. didnt even care, now i see that they are actually better than the us in ways (homos), and guess WHAT? (best part) WHO BENIFITS from muslim hate/ arab death?? hmm idk probably ISRAEL! suspend immigration, suspend foreign aid,

 

[JohnDB]

I tend to bow out for that, LoL. But yes, it's certainly there if one is truly desperate...


I've had a few come around - ones that used to irritate me badly, but have since turned into good discussion partners, so I think it can sometimes be a matter of learning how to adapt to people.

The ones who still aggravate me some (and there are many, but I'm learning to deal with it better now) are the ones who get all heated in debate, and then when you ask them a question that flies in the face of their argument they go deathly quiet, but still remain defiant, and want to continue the debate WITHOUT addressing your post.

That bothers me.... to say the least, LoL. But such is forum life. But there are some good ones here to discuss things with. Just depends on the topic and where they stand on that particular issue compared to you.

The problem is that so many get hyper focused on one section of scripture and forget about the logic train and what their thoughts and conclusions do when meshed forward with everything else we know about God.
Then there's those who really don't understand God's attributes. Omniscient, Sovereign, Holy, Immutable, and Eternal. (To name a few)
On top of this...God is a person and personable who has a unique relationship with each and every one of us. He isn't going to talk to you the exact same way as me.

Where He grumps and snarks at me...He might talk to you kindly and with great favor....others with very stiff formality. Dunno. Everyone has their own relationship.

 

[kcnalp]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

I think Kingdom Hall has invaded this forum.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think Kingdom Hall has invaded this forum.

There have been invasions going on here quite a bit lately. Unitarian, Gnostic, JWs... always something.

 

[James the Rabbit]

I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Notice any of this stuff going on around here? :)

These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:

27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.

64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.

3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

Most message boards don't have ground rules for debating. Also, people use different authorities; the Bible, Kingdom Hall, the Vatican. It is hard to debate someone if you can't agree on the facts