- Oct 11, 2020
- 3,345
- 1,109
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
I find it very common that if a person agrees with a position, they say nothing to affirm that position (whatever it may be). Conversely to that, I find it is very common that if a person disagrees with a position, they say something to say they negate that position (whatever it may be).
To me, and I don't know about you, this seems to be a problem.
Some people like to focus more on negative arguments rather than positive arguments. What is the difference between these? A negative argument is arguing against a position. Conversely to that, a positive argument is arguing for a position.
For example, almost all arguments against the existence of God are negative arguments rather than positive arguments. Conversely to that, almost all arguments for the existence of God are positive arguments rather than negative arguments.
For that reason, I see this as a general principle that we should strive towards.
Instead of focusing on "proving wrong" we should look to "prove right." Of course, this does not mean we cannot disagree with other people even in the form of negative arguments sometimes. But if we do that, the best way I can think of doing it is not straw-manning the other position and instead being charitable to the other view. Perhaps this charity would even mean arguing against the argument that puts the other position in the best possible light. This is called steel-manning, that is, to make the other position as strong as you can before arguing against that position. Not only does this make for a much more powerful argument, but it shows that your position has nothing to hide. There is this famous quote that goes like this: “Truth doesn’t mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
If someone asks you a question you can't answer, it is always best to tell them you don't know the answer instead of fabricating an answer to make yourself look good. It is dishonest to answer a question if you don't know if your answer is true.
As this is a Christian forum, most of the discussions on this board have to do with different views of Christianity. Oftentimes, people feel like an offense has been done to them when no such offense has been done. Be advised that saying, "I haven't thought about it that way," is a great way to gain respect from others and allows people to see you are more interested in the truth of a position rather than forwarding your own PoV (and we all have our own PoVs).
I leave you with the words of St. Augustine:
"Let me ask of my readers wherever alike myself he is certain, there to go with me. Wherever alike myself he hesitates, there to join me in inquiring. Wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, then to return to me. Wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back, so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance toward him it is said, 'Seek His face forevermore.'"
To me, and I don't know about you, this seems to be a problem.
Some people like to focus more on negative arguments rather than positive arguments. What is the difference between these? A negative argument is arguing against a position. Conversely to that, a positive argument is arguing for a position.
For example, almost all arguments against the existence of God are negative arguments rather than positive arguments. Conversely to that, almost all arguments for the existence of God are positive arguments rather than negative arguments.
For that reason, I see this as a general principle that we should strive towards.
Instead of focusing on "proving wrong" we should look to "prove right." Of course, this does not mean we cannot disagree with other people even in the form of negative arguments sometimes. But if we do that, the best way I can think of doing it is not straw-manning the other position and instead being charitable to the other view. Perhaps this charity would even mean arguing against the argument that puts the other position in the best possible light. This is called steel-manning, that is, to make the other position as strong as you can before arguing against that position. Not only does this make for a much more powerful argument, but it shows that your position has nothing to hide. There is this famous quote that goes like this: “Truth doesn’t mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
If someone asks you a question you can't answer, it is always best to tell them you don't know the answer instead of fabricating an answer to make yourself look good. It is dishonest to answer a question if you don't know if your answer is true.
As this is a Christian forum, most of the discussions on this board have to do with different views of Christianity. Oftentimes, people feel like an offense has been done to them when no such offense has been done. Be advised that saying, "I haven't thought about it that way," is a great way to gain respect from others and allows people to see you are more interested in the truth of a position rather than forwarding your own PoV (and we all have our own PoVs).
I leave you with the words of St. Augustine:
"Let me ask of my readers wherever alike myself he is certain, there to go with me. Wherever alike myself he hesitates, there to join me in inquiring. Wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, then to return to me. Wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back, so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance toward him it is said, 'Seek His face forevermore.'"
Last edited:
