The Nature of Debate

[Jonathan David]

Hey y'all.... so I have a question.... and it is not pointed outward because I have been guilty of what I will discuss. The question is "how do we improve the quality of debate in our lives and at CF?"

I know that we don't need more talk of SSM but I will use it as an example for what I am really getting at. There are two basic sides to this debate: Pro and Anti. On the pro side, we have a tendency to discredit everything that comes from the other side as "bigotted", "homophobic", etc. Using such language is not only simplistic (as it ignores the deep spiritual reasons for which one might believe that homosexuality is wrong), it also cuts off meaningful discussion with its accusatory tone. Who would want to be civil with someone who had just called them a biggot?

The same thing happens on the other side. Absolute statements about the immorality of homosexuality short0circuit meaningful discussion through the same process.

The problem is that we all believe deeply in what we are saying. It would be dishonest for someone to deny their belief regarding the sinful nature of an act just as it would be dishonest of me to deny that I find that SOME Christians draw on biggotry as much as they draw on spirituality in their condemnation of homosexuality. LAF has quite persuasively spoken to the importance that he places on speaking what his faith instructs. Can we ask him to deny that responsibility? Absolutely not. Can someone tell me to not use the word "biggot" when I see biggotry? Absolutely not.

So, what do we do? This question is easily resolved by deciding how we understand teh purpose of this forum. If it is just to yell at each other, than I think that we should change nothing. If however we wish to be productive (and this is not limited to SSM... this is about EVERYTHING), I suggest that we need to find a new way to interact.... we need the right to be honest about who we are and what we believe.... but we also have the responsibility to be respectful of others regardless of what they believe.

I doubt very much that any of us can change each other's minds. However, I do believe that we can interact in such a way that we can understand where we are all coming from... so that when we hit heavy debates we won't fall into the trap of simply stereotyping each other.... we will be able to deal with each other and see that differing opinions (no matter how wrong they seem to us) are sincerely held by our brothers and sisters here at CF.

Falling back to the example, do I wish that everyone supported SSM? Sure I do. Do I understand that many of those who oppose it do so based on principle and faith? Aboslutely. Do I think that they are wrong? Yes. Do I treat them with disrespect because of this? I have at times but I hope that in the future I will be able to say "Absolutely not."

I don't know how this happens but I think that we need to find that space. If anyone has any ideas, please share them with us.

 

[simplicity]

I think once either side starts asserting a totally absolute position on any debate, the debate ends. "The world is flat - and that's just the way it is." The debate ends right there since it is impossible to elevate beyond a totally absolute position. The topic from that point onward serves only to polarize two sides. This is not to say a side is right or wrong but only that the debate cannot develop any further if neither side wants to do any actual debating.

Of course, to be a good debater, in many respects it doesn't matter what is true or false but whether or not a side can be debated effectively. This is the sort of debate most of us have done in school were we might be assigned a side.

Generally speaking I do not mind folks calling up absolutes since sometimes an opinion is as valuable as a good argument for a particular side. I feel a debate remains a debate if we are discussing the topic of the debate rather than the character and moral fiber of those supporting a particular side. Once we start attacking the morality of individuals, it's time to take off the gloves and step outside. Let he who casts the first stone be free of sin.

 

[draper]

One G, Jon.

Do I find the "no" side in the SSM debate to be one of bigotry? Yes. Do I find all people who oppose SSM to be bigots? No. That's a key differenciation that has to be made. Are some of them bigots? Absolutlely, fully and completely.

Some people, unfortunately, do not see things in the same light as most and do not feel compelled to justify their views in the fashion that others do. I am inclined to think it's simply an issue of them not being smart enough to do so, but there's few other explanations. Either way, they don't "debate" - they state, and they restate while avoiding any points made. Those people exist on both sides of any debate, both here on CF and in real life.

I don't think I concluded that post adequately, but alas.

 

[Bible Addict]

One G, Jon.

Do I find the "no" side in the SSM debate to be one of bigotry? Yes.

Not to dredge up whatever happened in my absence between all of you, but how can someone like Lost-and-Found, for example have an opinion that can be called bigotry when the opinion even applies to himself? It doesn't make sense.

 

[draper]

Not to dredge up whatever happened in my absence between all of you, but how can someone like Lost-and-Found, for example have an opinion that can be called bigotry when the opinion even applies to himself? It doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't. But that's like, miles off topic and miles beside the point.

 

[Bible Addict]

You're right, it doesn't. But that's like, miles off topic and miles beside the point.

Draper, you seem to be forgetting your own post:

"Do I find the "no" side in the SSM debate to be one of bigotry? Yes."

So actually, it's a direct reply to what you said.

 

[trident343]

I think we should try and avoid "labelling" altogether. It is not productive and adds nothing to the discussion/debate.

If I see "Stephen Harper" and "Redneck" or "biggot" in the same post, I'm gonna puke. I mention this because I and others have been well behaved enough not to use "Jack Layton" and "Communist" in the same post. Lets just stick to debating points.

Godwin's Law: prov. “As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

 

[selfintercession]

OK... well... BA asked me to come in here and see this, so here I am (against my better judgment ).

Anyway, I see what you mean BA, draper how can I have bigoted opinions about myself? Actually, nevermind... let's not start another debate. Just from now on BA, you know I love you and all that, but please keep my name out of this part of CF from now on, OK? I really don't have the energy to get involved here anymore. Thanks

 

[Bible Addict]

Whatever you say boss. Anyway, I have to go for now

 

[zoziw]

Jonathan:

The only solution is to just post our views and let it be. The crux of our disagreement goes back to our presuppositions which are all different and all touch the philosophical realm which none of us are able to prove.

The root of our problem with many issues isn't that we like to discriminate against people or make life difficult for them but because we believe in hell and that people who fail to turn to Jesus and at least make an attempt at repentance are going there.

What kind of person would I be if I said "go ahead, live that way" when I think a particular action will have disastrous and permanent spiritual consquences?

I once heard the quote "Tolerance is a virtue for people who don't believe anything". For those who believe gay people should have the right to marry, tolerance is difficult and insults are more frequent when dealing with those opposed. On the other hand, for people who feel homosexuality in general is a sin, how do we tolerate actions that support an eternal life of torment?

On the other hand, I doubt anyone here has a deep belief in marshmallows, so tolerating specific views on that is easy.

The reality is that we can't debate this with any sucess because we all come at it with different presuppositions and those root premises have been debate unsuccessfully for thousands of years.

I don't accept yours and you don't accept mine so all we can do is try to understand where the other side is coming from and agree to disagree.

That is why I post on christian forums and not atheist ones, so I can discuss issues with people who share my presuppositions.