If I may...

[writer4hisglory]

This is something that may help. This was obtained from the following site, which would be a great read for all of us (including myself, and I plan to do so right now). I took a course in Critical Thinking and Debating in College, and what I am posting here was actually some major points in what we covered, so this is some legit stuff. Provided from the following link on 5/7/2007 12:00AMhttp://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtmlCommon fallacies of logic and rhetoric: Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.Argument from "authority".Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).Confusion of correlation and causation.Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.Suppressed evidence or half-truths.Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .

 

[Christina]

This is not a debate site it is a Christain site where we try to learn from each other it is not who wins or loses a debate as Gods word is always the winner it is about learning. To see something that you may have missed or seeing something new in his word if you want to debate go somewhere else and Im sure you will find someone the only reason to debate here is to get a better understanding of the word everyone here gets that but you. We are not all required to agree with one another but most can learn why another feels a certain way about a subject and agree to disagree. WE ARE NOT A DEBATE SITE.

 

[NuclearDruid]

You don't get many new ideas if you don't see an opposing view. It defeats the purpose of a learning site if it's only one-sided and constantly positive on things.

 

[HammerStone]

Not necessarily, religion is not so much a scientific debate as it is emotional and spiritual. That's not to say there is no science and cannot be scientific discussions. The problem comes down to people feeling very passionate about their beliefs and it's often near impossible to temper it.

 

[NuclearDruid]

I suppose if you want to keep it at a level such as that, then by all means, I'll steer clear from doing it. Minor debates are unavoidable, however. Even with the same religion ("Reality"), you still get disagreements.

 

[HammerStone]

Well right but that's the focus of this site - discussing and learning within Christianity. I don't expect everyone to agree because Christ himself told us he came to bring division. With debates with a Christian and nonChristian, it always comes down to the same old arguments that are never really rebuked in the eyes of the other. Go have those on the other sites out there by all means, but we're going to do our best to limit those here. That's not what this site is about.

 

[NuclearDruid]

I need to rephrase what I said before, I meant I'll steer clear from major debates. You'll only see it from me when I become attacked from now on.I've seen some pretty severe debates on the Christain topics, however. So there must be quite a bit of a difference of beliefs there, but good luck with controlling those!