Let's TALK about debate!

Fervent · Jan 7, 2021

True Counterphobia said:
I hear you are saying, "Just because some people abuse the use of the debate does not mean debate is necessarily bad." To that point I would only say if you can demonstrate that it is not at the point that one does change their mind if this changes things from a difference of debate to discussion? More to the point, I would say at the point one changes their mind it goes from debate to discussion. The notable thing here is a sense of empathy for your fellow dialoguies. I don't say to change one's mind afterwards is a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing and as much an act of repentance of sorts, but I would only ask WHY you cannot do that in the moment? That is where I would argue there are certain sentiments and biases and mechanisms in the mind held before the fact of a changing of the mind. I would illustrate this as it is written by Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as rI have been fully known. 13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." and in so saying, isn't Paul saying to hold love in the highest esteem and not discourse as to "win" the argument, and to not have that mindset, but rather to look to your brother in love and not look at your brother as an argument piece?

From this I'm gathering that you believe debate somehow dehumanizes the opposite sides, I would argue such an approach is exactly the sort of abuse I'm speaking to rather than a proper use of debate. Though this seems to be a semantic issue, since I am using all opposing dialogue in which two contradictory ideas are pitted against each other as debate. Such debates don't necessarily imply thinking less of your partner, nor is it necessarily adversarial. In fact I've been in a number of congenial debates in which there is much respect for one another but a mutual disagreement on point topics. And these debates aren't necessarily about winning or losing, perhaps not even finding a mediating position, but about discovering truth. Philosophy books were often written as dialogues because in debate there is a power that researching on one's own cannot fully establish and a debate can bring out things that weren't otherwise seen.

Spur of the moment revelations are rare, partly this is because of human biases but it's also partly because after the fact the whole debate can be taken in in a way that participating doesn't necessarily provide.

All of that said, there's also an enjoyment aspect of it when a debate is congenial they can be pleasant exchanges rather than heated contests. Though even heated contests can be profitable when there are serious issues to be hashed out. Let's not forget Paul argued with both James and Peter, going so far with Peter as to write "I opposed him to his face." There's a time and a place for debate, though I would agree with a sentiment that often we are too quick to argue rather than to listen.

All Becomes New · Jan 7, 2021

Fervent said:
From this I'm gathering that you believe debate somehow dehumanizes the opposite sides, I would argue such an approach is exactly the sort of abuse I'm speaking to rather than a proper use of debate. Though this seems to be a semantic issue, since I am using all opposing dialogue in which two contradictory ideas are pitted against each other as debate. Such debates don't necessarily imply thinking less of your partner, nor is it necessarily adversarial. In fact I've been in a number of congenial debates in which there is much respect for one another but a mutual disagreement on point topics. And these debates aren't necessarily about winning or losing, perhaps not even finding a mediating position, but about discovering truth. Philosophy books were often written as dialogues because in debate there is a power that researching on one's own cannot fully establish and a debate can bring out things that weren't otherwise seen.

Spur of the moment revelations are rare, partly this is because of human biases but it's also partly because after the fact the whole debate can be taken in in a way that participating doesn't necessarily provide.

All of that said, there's also an enjoyment aspect of it when a debate is congenial they can be pleasant exchanges rather than heated contests. Though even heated contests can be profitable when there are serious issues to be hashed out. Let's not forget Paul argued with both James and Peter, going so far with Peter as to write "I opposed him to his face." There's a time and a place for debate, though I would agree with a sentiment that often we are too quick to argue rather than to listen.

Hello. It is hard to empathise with you without compromising my own opinion on debates. You rightly say that the real heart of the matter is the attitude of the debate, or rather, to use a more OT term, the Spirit behind such positions. I find that if one can debate with the Fruits of the Spirit in the forefront of one's mind when discussing things with others that this leads to civil discourse. Not that the other person will come around to your view, but that you have peace with what you yourself have said. I hope this finds you well.

Studyman · Jan 9, 2021

Studyman said:
Well there is much I can agree with here. Maybe I am confusing "Reasoned" with "Debating".

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Very good discussion.

I meant “there isn’t much I can disagree with here”.
Woops, sorry ‘bout that.

Carl Emerson · Jan 9, 2021

Studyman said:
I just posted scriptures where Paul Himself tells us what he was an expert in. HE says "the traditions of his fathers" "Jews religion". He said where his religion came from "at the feet of Gameliel" not Moses. I also posted the Christ's own Words, as well as others, which teach that the "Jews Religion" and the "tradition of the fathers" were not from God or God's Law. Jesus said they didn't even believe Moses. He said their father was satan.

My disagreement with your religious philosophy is because you ignore these Biblical Truths and your doctrines omit them. You don't have to, you could agree with Jesus on this matter, but you don't as your own posts clearly show. That is the reason for our fundamental disagreement.

Yes, you say many things. But I should follow the Christ of the Bible and HIS Teaching.

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How would I know which spirit is influencing me? If it is the Spirit of Christ, then I would agree with the Word's of the Christ which are Spirit and Life. If I find a belief which is contrary to HIS Word's, then it is me who is corrected, not the Scripture.

If Paul was an expert in the Law and Prophets, he would have been a "man of God" wise unto Salvation, like Zacharias was. You know, Zacharias that I have posted several times and you have refused to acknowledge.

Jesus said the Pharisees were not "Experts" in God's Laws. He said they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men, not God. HE said they didn't even believe Moses.

They "omitted" the Weightier matters of the law. HE said Moses gave them the Law and they didn't keep it.

So this is why we fundamentally disagree. I believe what Jesus and Paul say about the Pharisees, you don't, therefore we disagree.

Well I went to the trouble of starting another tread concerning Pauls knowledge of the law.

Not one scholar on CF agrees with you - you are welcome to debate them here...

Did Paul have knowledge of Moses and the Law before conversion?

Studyman · Jan 9, 2021

Carl Emerson said:
Well I went to the trouble of starting another tread concerning Pauls knowledge of the law.

Not one scholar on CF agrees with you - you are welcome to debate them here...

Did Paul have knowledge of Moses and the Law before conversion?

Don't place yourself so high in your own eyes that you presume to know what ALL others think about the scriptures I post.

I simply posted Paul's own words about his religion before he came to knowledge of the truth. You don't believe his own description of his own past religion? You are free to believe, or not believe as you choose. Personally I believe his words.

I would agree that Zacharias and Simeon were experts in God's Laws. You should read about them. But Paul was simply an expert in the Jews religion which taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. A religion which led people astray, away from God for centuries. Just as the Cardinal is an expert in Catholicism, not an expert in the Laws of God.

All I have is scripture. If you don't believe what is written, then there is no real reason to attempt to examine them with you.

Carl Emerson · Jan 9, 2021

Studyman said:
Don't place yourself so high in your own eyes that you presume to know what ALL others think about the scriptures I post.

I simply posted Paul's own words about his religion before he came to knowledge of the truth. You don't believe his own description of his own past religion? You are free to believe, or not believe as you choose. Personally I believe his words.

I would agree that Zacharias and Simeon were experts in God's Laws. You should read about them. But Paul was simply an expert in the Jews religion which taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. A religion which led people astray, away from God for centuries. Just as the Cardinal is an expert in Catholicism, not an expert in the Laws of God.

All I have is scripture. If you don't believe what is written, then there is no real reason to attempt to examine them with you.

I believe what is written but not your interpretation.

As for this statement...
"Don't place yourself so high in your own eyes that you presume to know what ALL others think about the scriptures I post." Really ??? When did I say or think that...

Seriously why don't you share your insights on the other thread?

Have a great day...

Soyeong · Jan 9, 2021

True Counterphobia said:
TBH, I tire of debates. I do not know what is appealing to endlessly fighting over this and that ad nauseum. I feel some people are in love with their own understanding of things and just want to tell everyone else they are wrong.

And I forgot to add, one of the main reasons I am pretty much against debating in both a formal and informal sense is that it assume the "opponents" never change their minds on anything. What is the point if there's no change of mind in these things?

When two people hold their positions so strongly that they are willing to defend their positions in a formal debate, then the reality is that it is very unlikely that they will persuade the other debater even though that is something they want to do, so the focus of formal debates is not so much on trying to persuade the other debater as it is on trying to persuade the audience. Even on forums such as this one, there is no telling how many people are persuaded by reading the posts in a thread without participating in posting in it. People who are using a search engine to look to look up the answer to a question can find a thread years after it was first created.

True Counterphobia said:
I do not think you have understood what I have written. What I quoted here is precisely what I am against as it makes the mind a contraption which is not in the Spirit of Christ, but rather an exercise in the mechanisation of the mind. When you rob yourself of living in the truth of your own perspective, you violate your own innocence.

It can be easy to become blinded by our biases, so it can be good to try to see an issue from a different perspective by trying to defend a position that we disagree with as if it were true to see if there is any merit to it. For example, while I was investigating the issue of whether Christians should keep the Mosaic Law, I used this forum to defend arguments in favor of that position to see if there was any merit to them before I finally decided to commit to that position. However, even if we do our best to evaluate the arguments for a position that we disagree with as objectively as possible and still remain unpersuaded by them, then at the very least we are better able to understand why people hold that position, we are better able to argue against what they actually believe rather than a caricature of their position, and we are able to reinforce our own position, and we are less likely to vilify those who hold that positions, especially when it come to religion and politics. Furthermore, I think that the people who are willing to do this are on the opposite side of the spectrum as the people who are in love with their own understanding of things and just want to tell everyone else they are wrong.

I've been wrong about many things in the past and I likely will be wrong about many things in the future, and so the chances are pretty good that there are currently things that I hold to be true that are actually false, I just don't know which things they are, and most likely won't find out unless I am willing examine the positions of people that I disagree with as objectively as possible. So I see learning as the process as taking in new true and false beliefs, reinforcing true beliefs, and weeding out false beliefs. Naturally, there is the risk of wrongly reinforcing false beliefs and wrongly weeding out true beliefs, but such is the risk inherent in learning, which is far less of a risk than to stop learning.

To truly listen to someone, we need to treat them as though they have at least one thing to say that would be valuable for us to learn. We should try to repeat back their thoughts and feelings in our own words to their satisfaction before trying to disagree with them. We should even try to first make their argument stronger because they might have something valuable to say even if they aren't able to do a good job of articulating it.

All Becomes New · Jan 9, 2021

Soyeong said:
When two people hold their positions so strongly that they are willing to defend their positions in a formal debate, then the reality is that it is very unlikely that they will persuade the other debater even though that is something they want to do, so the focus of formal debates is not so much on trying to persuade the other debater as it is on trying to persuade the audience. Even on forums such as this one, there is no telling how many people are persuaded by reading the posts in a thread without participating in posting in it. People who are using a search engine to look to look up the answer to a question can find a thread years after it was first created.

It can be easy to become blinded by our biases, so it can be good to try to see an issue from a different perspective by trying to defend a position that we disagree with as if it were true to see if there is any merit to it. For example, while I was investigating the issue of whether Christians should keep the Mosaic Law, I used this forum to defend arguments in favor of that position to see if there was any merit to them before I finally decided to commit to that position. However, even if we do our best to evaluate the arguments for a position that we disagree with as objectively as possible and still remain unpersuaded by them, then at the very least we are better able to understand why people hold that position, we are better able to argue against what they actually believe rather than a caricature of their position, and we are able to reinforce our own position, and we are less likely to vilify those who hold that positions, especially when it come to religion and politics. Furthermore, I think that the people who are willing to do this are on the opposite side of the spectrum as the people who are in love with their own understanding of things and just want to tell everyone else they are wrong.

I've been wrong about many things in the past and I likely will be wrong about many things in the future, and so the chances are pretty good that there are currently things that I hold to be true that are actually false, I just don't know which things they are, and most likely won't find out unless I am willing examine the positions of people that I disagree with as objectively as possible. So I see learning as the process as taking in new true and false beliefs, reinforcing true beliefs, and weeding out false beliefs. Naturally, there is the risk of wrongly reinforcing false beliefs and wrongly weeding out true beliefs, but such is the risk inherent in learning, which is far less of a risk than to stop learning.

To truly listen to someone, we need to treat them as though they have at least one thing to say that would be valuable for us to learn. We should try to repeat back their thoughts and feelings in our own words to their satisfaction before trying to disagree with them. We should even try to first make their argument stronger because they might have something valuable to say even if they aren't able to do a good job of articulating it.

Hi. I take a position against necessary evils. Just as we are to follow what the Government says as long as it doesn't conflict with our beliefs, it is the same with debate. The differences is that when you come at things with the perspective of debate in mind, you rob both yourself and your opponent of charity to love. One might say, "I disagree with you, but I love you," which is a fine statement, but I would argue this is the very antithesis of the saying, "I disagree with you and here's why". Look at the way Christ answered the Pharisees. He often did not play their game, but answered their accusations with something that blew everyone's minds because he didn't participate in the politics of debate and His answers transcend time itself. What is relevant in a debate is specific to the debate itself. We should aim for saying Truth not only in this time, but in all times regardless of our specific circumstance. To this, I could learn in not doing what the OP is about - namely that I start off saying this is a specific problem for our current time, when it actually goes back and back.

In short, what you are saying is that we should empathise with the opposite position. I agree with that, but where I disagree is in the "arguing against".

Soyeong · Jan 9, 2021

True Counterphobia said:
Hi. I take a position against necessary evils. Just as we are to follow what the Government says as long as it doesn't conflict with our beliefs, it is the same with debate. The differences is that when you come at things with the perspective of debate in mind, you rob both yourself and your opponent of charity to love. One might say, "I disagree with you, but I love you," which is a fine statement, but I would argue this is the very antithesis of the saying, "I disagree with you and here's why". Look at the way Christ answered the Pharisees. He often did not play their game, but answered their accusations with something that blew everyone's minds because he didn't participate in the politics of debate and His answers transcend time itself. What is relevant in a debate is specific to the debate itself. We should aim for saying Truth not only in this time, but in all times regardless of our specific circumstance. To this, I could learn in not doing what the OP is about - namely that I start off saying this is a specific problem for our current time, when it actually goes back and back.

In short, what you are saying is that we should empathise with the opposite position. I agree with that, but where I disagree is in the "arguing against".

Hello,

I am well aware that there are many people who think that I am wrong, I find it pointless when someone just says that they disagree with me without explaining why they disagree. If I am wrong about something, then I want to know, but I need to be persuaded that I am wrong. If someone sees me saying something that they think is wrong are care enough about me to correct me, then I see that as an expression of love, which is far better than the apathy of them thinking that I said something wrong and not bothering to try to correct me. Jesus did much more than just disagree with people and tell them that he loved them. In the debate between Hillel and Shammai, Jesus almost always sided with Hillel.

All Becomes New · Jan 9, 2021

Soyeong said:
Hello,

I am well aware that there are many people who think that I am wrong, I find it pointless when someone just says that they disagree with me without explaining why they disagree. If I am wrong about something, then I want to know, but I need to be persuaded that I am wrong. If someone sees me saying something that they think is wrong are care enough about me to correct me, then I see that as an expression of love, which is far better than the apathy of them thinking that I said something wrong and not bothering to try to correct me. Jesus did much more than just disagree with people and tell them that he loved them. In the debate between Hillel and Shammai, Jesus almost always sided with Hillel.

I encourage you to read the rest of the thread if you have not done so. You will get a clearer picture of my position then.

Blessings.

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2021

@True Counterphobia

I do wish you would reply to my post about friendly debates being a method for mutual edification via the Socratic Method.

All Becomes New · Jan 9, 2021

The Liturgist said:
@True Counterphobia

I do wish you would reply to my post about friendly debates being a method for mutual edification via the Socratic Method.

I will answer this way: My Therapist, who I have because of mental health struggles often associates me to philosophers of old like Aristotle. He says I am an "old soul" and have a characterization of renaissance about me. Whether he is simply stroking my ego or not, I do not know. He also tells me it is very hard to make a living out of being a philosopher.

All Becomes New · Jan 9, 2021

The Liturgist said:
I do understand where you are coming from, however, if two honest people respectful of each other and of their respective beliefs engage in a proper civilized debate, both parties can benefit due to the dialogue. This principle of healthy dialogue goes back to Socrates, and indeed we see our Lord and His Apostles engage in respectful debates which resulted in sublime edification.

On the other hand, I would be the first to agree that there is nothing to be gained by a heated, angry flamewar type debate of the sort which is all too common on the Internet. That kind of angry polemical back-and-forth is mean, nasty and counterproductive in most cases.

There is one exception to that, and that is that if someone is spreading falsehoods, it is of benefit to third parties to set the record straight while seeking to avoid, as much as possible, any kind of inflammatory back-and-forth with the person who is promulgating the inaccurate information.

1. You are talking about discussion and inserting the word debate into that.
2. Jesus exposed falsehoods all the time. It was what he was doing constantly, but he saw things clearly not like Paul who says he sees dimly.

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2021

True Counterphobia said:
I will answer this way: My Therapist, who I have because of mental health struggles often associates me to philosophers of old like Aristotle. He says I am an "old soul" and have a characterization of renaissance about me. Whether he is simply stroking my ego or not, I do not know. He also tells me it is very hard to make a living out of being a philosopher.

Well, a close relative had a PhD in philosophy and was a tenured professor in the field, and he taught philosophy for many years at a respected university and made quite a bit of money, although he was not in it for the money by any means.

The Liturgist · Jan 9, 2021

True Counterphobia said:
1. You are talking about discussion and inserting the word debate into that.
2. Jesus exposed falsehoods all the time. It was what he was doing constantly, but he saw things clearly not like Paul who says he sees dimly.

On your first point, I am pretty sure honest debate counts as a basis for the Socratic Method. Whenever I have a friendly debate on CF.com, I always do it for reasons of the Socratic Method, so that I and my counterpart can learn from each other and mutually discover a greater truth. Its all about mutual enrichment.

All Becomes New · Jan 9, 2021

The Liturgist said:
On your first point, I am pretty sure honest debate counts as a basis for the Socratic Method. Whenever I have a friendly debate on CF.com, I always do it for reasons of the Socratic Method, so that I and my counterpart can learn from each other and mutually discover a greater truth. Its all about mutual enrichment.

Then you are not who I am talking about. I am talking about people who see debate as a means in itself but instead, I think it is FOR something else, which is the pursuit of Truth. THAT is what I am against. I don't agree with the "method of debate" because it demonstrates an ILL mindset and replaces the core of what it is for with the method that it is done. Debate is hollow.

All Becomes New · Jan 10, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Well, a close relative had a PhD in philosophy and was a tenured professor in the field, and he taught philosophy for many years at a respected university and made quite a bit of money, although he was not in it for the money by any means.

Not sure what to say to you here. Do you think I am saying it is impossible to make a career out of philosophy? Of course I am not saying that as I said it was "very hard" and not impossible.

Let's TALK about debate!

Well-Known Member

Slave to Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Slave to Christ

Well-Known Member

Slave to Christ

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Slave to Christ

Slave to Christ

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Slave to Christ

Slave to Christ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency