is true debate really possible??

[thepromiseofgrace]

or is it mainly just point scoring?

 

[kristina411]

I assume the point of a debate is to win. In high school I was on sides I did not agree with and still won lol. Its purpose is who can punch the most holes, or at least that's the way it appears to be most commonly played out.

To avoid scorekeeping I believe it would run into conversation territory

 

[Jesse2014]

point scoring

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think its useful for changing peoples minds when they are firmly convinced of something. But it does help to get people thinking who otherwise are uncommitted.

 

[Tree of Life]

Most debate is for the benefit of those who do not yet hold a position.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most debate is for the benefit of those who do not yet hold a position.

Many years ago I found watching some of the early debates of William Lane Craig very helpful in convincing me that Christianity could be an intellectual response to life, not just an emotional one (I grew up Methodist which I perceived as being primarily an emotional response, so I drifted away from the Church). I know he is widely derided by the atheist intelligentsia for perceived shortcommings in his debating: many claim he doesn't really answer their challenges, which I always find odd because usually their challenges are emotivist- something that is difficult to respond to in the context of a debate, especially since much of the emotional sustenance Christians get from their faith is within the life of the Church itself: if you stand on the outside its difficult to appreciate the inside

As you say, I believe those sorts of debates mostly help the undecided.

 

[Viren]

Point scoring makes things more exciting, but hopefully some uncovering of truth can be possible too.

 

[kristina411]

I agree with everyone

I think people should remember the distinction between conversation and debate.

In a debate it is score keeping for the benefit of the audience to learn. (as the previous posters pointed out already)Both sides have their side and it is stuck to.

A conversation should be with both people inclined to learn themselves, meaning no point keeping, but a joined quest for knowledge. This can benefit the audience and the participators.
Debates are fun and action packed, but do nothing for the people debating themselves. The research yeah but the act of debate itself is nit to learn from the opponent but to gain the audiences favor.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

for it to be true debate do both people have to be open minded on the subject, to the point where they haven't made their minds up on the subject.

 

[kristina411]

^ no.

 

[bhsmte]

or is it mainly just point scoring?

What do you mean exactly by; "true debate"?

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

real, honest debate, two or more people trying to work something through to a conclusion.

 

[lesliedellow]

is true debate really possible??

Not on internet forums, it isn't.

 

[Paradoxum]

Many years ago I found watching some of the early debates of William Lane Craig very helpful in convincing me that Christianity could be an intellectual response to life, not just an emotional one (I grew up Methodist which I perceived as being primarily an emotional response, so I drifted away from the Church). I know he is widely derided by the atheist intelligentsia for perceived shortcommings in his debating: many claim he doesn't really answer their challenges, which I always find odd because usually their challenges are emotivist- something that is difficult to respond to in the context of a debate, especially since much of the emotional sustenance Christians get from their faith is within the life of the Church itself: if you stand on the outside its difficult to appreciate the inside

As you say, I believe those sorts of debates mostly help the undecided.

I used to like William Lane Craig, until I started having doubts about my faith. Then most arguments for God really lost their power for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

real, honest debate, two or more people trying to work something through to a conclusion.

I'm not trying to bust your bubble here, but I don't think that a conclusion is necessarily something that can be expected from each and every debate. Debates are often constrained for time and content quantity, and its probably a little dubious for us to think we will witness an actual conclusion being reached at the end of an intellectual exchange.

It would be great if people with opposing viewpoints could come together and discuss an issue or topic while agreeing to two things: 1) to question their own assumptions, and 2) to be willing to check out the 'evidence' of the opposing side, as well as be open to new evidence.

What....some of you say you're not willing to do this?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[WoundedDeep]

or is it mainly just point scoring?

In regards to faith and God, true debate is not possible because faith in God requires personal experience and conviction from God Himself. What we put forth in debates are but our description of what we understand from God, but without God's Spirit, no words we say will have any meaning.

 

[FireDragon76]

I used to like William Lane Craig, until I started having doubts about my faith. Then most arguments for God really lost their power for me.

For many that leave the Christian faith, emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, top the list. Ironically, in one debate between Craig and Sam Harris, Harris said it best, it does no good to reason with someone who doesn't believe in reason. Which is a bit hypocritical because Harris was constantly rebuffing the rational arguments for God in favor of emotivist objections (the usual list, children dying of cancer, Hindus going to hell, prayers being unanswered... neglecting Craig's arguments for ontology altogether).

In regards to faith and God, true debate is not possible because faith in God requires personal experience and conviction from God Himself. What we put forth in debates are but our description of what we understand from God, but without God's Spirit, no words we say will have any meaning.

You don't think God's Spirit works through human means? He just randomly zaps people? That to me seems an ahistorical understanding of the Holy Spirit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For many that leave the Christian faith, emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, top the list. Ironically, in one debate between Craig and Sam Harris, Harris said it best, it does no good to reason with someone who doesn't believe in reason. Which is a bit hypocritical because Harris was constantly rebuffing the rational arguments for God in favor of emotivist objections (the usual list, children dying of cancer, Hindus going to hell, prayers being unanswered... neglecting Craig's arguments for ontology altogether).



You don't think God's Spirit works through human means? He just randomly zaps people? That to me seems an ahistorical understanding of the Holy Spirit.

...or, 'maybe' He is open to doing both, or either, depending on what He deems is needed, FireD. Isn't this what we see happening in the totality of Scripture?

[I'm asking this respectfully, FireDragon, not as an opportunity to quell your input.]

 

[quatona]

real, honest debate, two or more people trying to work something through to a conclusion.

In my understanding, *debate* is about winning (not about honesty or cooperative thinking). That´s why I wouldn´t touch a debate with a ten foot pole.
What you seem to be looking for would be a *discussion*.
Is it possible? Yes.

 

[agua]

real, honest debate, two or more people trying to work something through to a conclusion.

From a Christian perspective ( if the subject is the existance of Yahweh etc ) debate is unfortunate/ inadviseable although subsets of this may be helpful.
Discussion is the more effective tool of communicating.

It's interesting Paul indicated that he was competing/racing in life but that the opponent was himself/flesh. It might be good to keep this in mind when debating.