Honest Debate Rule

Pseudonym · Jun 20, 2006

TheBear posted a link to Ann Coulter's chat forum a couple of days ago and I found an interesting idea that I think may be applicable to the C&E Forum. It's called the Honest Debate Rule.
Here's how it works in theory:

If a poster makes an assertion and then sidesteps questions or arguments against his or her assertion (by changing the subject, ignoring those who question him or her, etc.), the poster is in violation of the Honest Debate Rule and some sort of punishment is levied. Perhaps such punishments could be warnings, deleting posts, revoking the poster's right to post in C&E, etc.

The purpose of this poll is not to discuss the possible punishments, but rather see if the posters here on C&E are in favor of such a rule being instituted.

I voted yes.

azmurath · Jun 20, 2006

Depending, if it is noticable that the poster is avoiding questions or trying to dodge them, then yes, but soemtimes threads fill up quickly and some questions or points are skipped for the sake of time.

TheBear · Jun 20, 2006

I'm all for it!

David Gould · Jun 20, 2006

A person should have a reasonable chance to answer the question, and perhaps have to be a repeat offender, before I would support any sort of sanction. And even then, I am not sure that it would be useful. One of the interesting things for lurkers, I am sure, is seeing how many creationists avoid answering questions. This may be frustrating for participants, but it is illuminating as to the bankruptcy of the creationist position.

chaoschristian · Jun 20, 2006

Given the rather unique nature of this forum, I voted yes. I would think that there would need to be very clear, specific rules as to what constituted "Honest Debate", which I equate to intellectual honesty and adherance to former rules of logic, so that the rule could be enforceable.

fromdownunder · Jun 20, 2006

I sometimes get annoyed when I have spent some time, thought and research to respond to another post, just to find that the person responding pulls one sentence from my response, ignores the major content (and context) completely, and then tries to indicate that he/she is actually contributing to the debate, when to all and sundry, it is obvious that this person is simply ignoring what was written.

I can only assume that, when people do this time and time again, it is a deliberate attempt to ignore or attempt to destabilise the debate.

Norm

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

A similar but more comprehencive type of debating rule can do more toward what your after without "punishments" involved. Punishing often hides the truth rather than exposing it.

"Resolution debating" requires that each point of an argument be settled before the next is addressed. Both opponents must agree on each point in order to make progress. If agreement can not be reached, then the point is broken down into its reasoning and the debate continues until that point is settled.

If after deep extraction of the reasoning for a single point, the point still can not be resolved, then the debate becomes about the irresolvable point fore it has been identified as the true resolve of the original argument.

Such debating allows the audience to see every detail of exactly what is being understood void of the distractive and insidious efforts involved in political debating merely for votes.

By the "end" of a resolution debate, the opponents can no longer disagree and thus the issue is resolved.

This method would supercede what you are proposing in that it forces the honest truth to either be agreed upon or analysed until all see the same truth.

chaoschristian · Jun 20, 2006

ReluctantProphet said:
A similar but more comprehencive type of debating rule can do more toward what your after without "punishments" involved. Punishing often hides the truth rather than exposing it.

"Resolution debating" requires that each point of an argument be settled before the next is addressed. Both opponents must agree on each point in order to make progress. If agreement can not be reached, then the point is broken down into its reasoning and the debate continues until that point is settled.

If after deep extraction of the reasoning for a single point, the point still can not be resolved, then the debate becomes about the irresolvable point fore it has been identified as the true resolve of the original argument.

Such debating allows the audience to see every detail of exactly what is being understood void of the distractive and insidious efforts involved in political debating merely for votes.

By the "end" of a resolution debate, the opponents can no longer disagree and thus the issue is resolved.

This method would supercede what you are proposing in that it forces the honest truth to either be agreed upon or analysed until all see the same truth.

I like this, but wouldn't have the effect of turning the entire forum into the Formal Debates sub-forum?

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

chaoschristian said:
I like this, but wouldn't have the effect of turning the entire forum into the Formal Debates sub-forum?

Well, they could either alter rules or make a different category of debating ...Take your pick. Either way, the people will finally be able to actually expose the truth despite the clouds.

If Christianity and debating isn't about the real truth, then what is it about?

chaoschristian · Jun 20, 2006

I'm all for lifting the fog.

I'm just noting that it would be a significant structural and cultural change to the forum.

However, perhaps that is what it would take.

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

chaoschristian said:
I'm all for lifting the fog.

I'm just noting that it would be a significant structural and cultural change to the forum.

However, perhaps that is what it would take.

If you never do anything new, how do you expect to ever get out of a jam?

Besides which, isn't "sight to the blinded" a rather significant Christian concept? How are Christians following Jesus if they don't do as He did?

TheBear · Jun 20, 2006

ReluctantProphet said:
If Christianity and debating isn't about the real truth, then what is it about?

To some Christians, it's about defending their position, even if it means lying, being evasive, clouding the issue, blurring the lines, resorting to ad hominems, making stuff up as they go along........Anything and everything will be used, in order to defend their position.

It really needs to stop. I am all for an official and enforcable CF rule to maintain the integrity of a debate. I know. The fact that it has come to this, is a sad state of affairs. But there is a lack of honesty and integrity with a lot of Christians who post here.

chaoschristian · Jun 20, 2006

ReluctantProphet said:
If you never do anything new, how do you expect to ever get out of a jam?

Who is it that said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results?'

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

TheBear said:
But there is a lack of honesty and integrity with a lot of Christians who post here.

I have seen such on both sides and throughout the entire world of political debating. I am more than a little tired of it myself.

Truth isn't about politics and politics certainly doesn't clear any clouds away. If deception isn't the intent, then what's to fear from forcing exposure to the truth?

Neither side really has anything to fear, but each must learn to change what they have been doing a bit. Reality isn't THAT scary.

TheBear · Jun 20, 2006

ReluctantProphet said:
I have seen such on both sides and throughout the entire world of political debating. I am more than a little tired of it myself.

Truth isn't about politics and politics certainly doesn't clear any clouds away. If deception isn't the intent, then what's to fear from forcing exposure to the truth?

Neither side really has anything to fear, but each must learn to change what they have been doing a bit. Reality isn't THAT scary.

I see what you mean. But this isn't about politics. It's about science. Personal opinions drive politics. Personal opinions carry little weight in science.

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

TheBear said:
I see what you mean. But this isn't about politics. It's about science. Personal opinions drive politics. Personal opinions carry little weight in science.

Science is supposed to be about truth and Christianity is supposed to be about truth. So why not let the Truth be seen and speak for itself?

TheBear · Jun 20, 2006

ReluctantProphet said:
Science is supposed to be about truth and Christianity is supposed to be about truth. So why not let the Truth be seen and speak for itself?

"Truth" is a philosophical term, not used in science.

But we are derailing the thread.

My apologies to the OP.

ReluctantProphet · Jun 20, 2006

TheBear said:
My apologies to the OP.

Thank you.

Honesty was the concern. Resolution debating brings it out.

TheBear · Jun 20, 2006

Pseudonym said:
TheBear posted a link to Ann Coulter's chat forum a couple of days ago and I found an interesting idea that I think may be applicable to the C&E Forum. It's called the Honest Debate Rule. Of course Ann's forum doesn't really observe the rule unless someone criticizes Ann, but here's how it works in theory:

If a poster makes an assertion and then sidesteps questions or arguments against his or her assertion (by changing the subject, ignoring those who question him or her, etc.), the poster is in violation of the Honest Debate Rule and some sort of punishment is levied. Perhaps such punishments could be warnings, deleting posts, revoking the poster's right to post in C&E, etc.

The purpose of this poll is not to discuss the possible punishments, but rather see if the posters here on C&E are in favor of such a rule being instituted.

I voted yes.

So far, 100% agree with this.

Soul Searcher · Jun 20, 2006

I would say yes also within reason, but only when the question are directly related to the topic at hand. I haven't posted much in this forum but in other areas of the board it is not uncommon for someone to start asking questions that muddy the waters and get off the point, sometimes way off the point. Such questions are often better left unresponded to.

Honest Debate Rule

Should there be an Honest Debate Rule in the C&E Forum?

Yes

No

Don't Know/Don't Care

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

The kingdom is within

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency