tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post4519876252553982341..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Debater's code of ethicsWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-72658371105320936452012-01-05T11:46:03.449-06:002012-01-05T11:46:03.449-06:00There's a lot of good material there. People w...There's a lot of good material there. People who intend to debate should definitely become familiar with logical fallacies. It would be great if every debater knew how to recognize them, how to avoid them, and how to respond to them. <br /><br />I'm hoping for a more complete list somewhere before I post a link, though ... <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-12214936014529596042012-01-04T08:24:31.006-06:002012-01-04T08:24:31.006-06:00You should add this link for common fallacies comm...You should add this link for common fallacies committed on arguments. http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/writing-the-paper/fallaciesRussell Purvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787840872893249935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-45778358887909679772012-01-04T08:24:15.598-06:002012-01-04T08:24:15.598-06:00You should add this link for common fallacies comm...You should add this link for common fallacies committed on arguments. http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/writing-the-paper/fallaciesRussell Purvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787840872893249935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-67691348057292358642011-12-31T09:46:11.211-06:002011-12-31T09:46:11.211-06:00Hey, thanks for the thoughts there.
Martin - Sin...Hey, thanks for the thoughts there. <br /><br />Martin - Since you can debate about anything, I left that part fairly broad: to establish which position has the most merit. How would you see the point of a debate, as debate? (Often conversations are more productive than debates, but this post is based on the premise that someone has already accepted a challenge to debate and now needs to do so in a Christian manner.)<br /><br />Aron - LOL, definitely ("even if the other person does not"), "return good for evil" as The Man says. And I think that's a useful addition, about when the other side has given every reason to believe they care nothing about ethics in the debate, how you handle that. <br /><br />Btw you all might be interested in the link the first commenter left. It's to some posting rules developed by people who were national-level champion debaters, and identify themselves as Christians. It's from a debater's eye view, and has some interesting material. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-74016873858021105392011-12-30T12:18:42.514-06:002011-12-30T12:18:42.514-06:00Add "These rules apply even when the other pe...Add "These rules apply even when the other person disregards them"?<br /><br />While #8 is a good rule of thumb and a necessary default starting position, I don't think it's universally applicable. <br /><br />Sometimes the lack of good faith on the part of the opponent is so pronounced that no meaningful debate can occur without removing this obstacle. Even then, in the majority of cases, no good can come even of graciously pointing out the fault of ones opponents.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I am convinced that in a minority of situations, calling people out on bad behaviour is precisely the loving, truthful, and Christian response, i.e. the one most likely to build up the other person. Some people use this tactic much too often, but that does not mean it is always unhelpful.<br /><br />I would rephrase #8 to say something like "start by assuming...and be reluctant to conclude otherwise." or equivalently, "Give the opponent the benefit of the doubt with respect to their intentions". Perhaps one could add "Do not accuse other people of dishonesty unless it is likely to benefit the other participants (and usually it doesn't)."Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-32879560108408965662011-12-30T04:39:49.250-06:002011-12-30T04:39:49.250-06:00Good list. I didn't miss anything, except the ...Good list. I didn't miss anything, except the question of why the debate took place. What purpose will it serve?Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-17429963299715472422011-12-29T20:05:03.578-06:002011-12-29T20:05:03.578-06:00I like that. Thanks for posting the link. It's...I like that. Thanks for posting the link. It's more conversational there. While I'm more angled on just the ethics, they actually go into debate details. (Leave it to people who spend that much time debating!) The insights were great. <br /><br />And I love the names they gave to some of the underhanded tactics. (So a "question avalanche" is what you call it when people do that? I never knew ... )<br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-28770774269755275262011-12-29T08:26:03.630-06:002011-12-29T08:26:03.630-06:00I've had this posted for a while - the Harris ...I've had this posted for a while - the Harris twins<br /><br /><a href="http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2005/08/you-read-it-right-complete-blog-commenting-guidelines/" rel="nofollow">Expectation in Debate</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com