Dishonesty should be against the rules

[Angel]

Several forum members and I have been engaged in a debate against a forum member named, Artie. I caught this person twice in lies. These lies involve making inconsistent statements and I have clear and direct evidence which I posted on the forum where this debate is taking place. Now I see no direct rule against lying, but it can damage trust and debate quality when this is allowed and becomes a pattern. Lying in debates can involve, lying about your position, lying about informatoin, lying about who said what, etc. I'm not saying that anyone should call someone a liar for any reason, but when there's EVIDENCE of dishonesty going on, then shouldn't moderator action be taken? In my view, a liar is not interested in getting to the truth but rather trying to win a debate at all cost with even w/ dirty or DISHONEST tactics. So I question, why should a person be kept here when there's clear evidence of this behavior.

[Angel]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

And that worked out for you by spending many posts trying to debate someone who seems for now to have had no interests in accepting what you were saying to begin with. YOU were the one to get moderator comments and warnings in the process. Even I had to spend MANY posts trying to explain to a so called weak atheists how saying that "Gods don't exist" meant that the person had some view on God. Had there been a rule in place then countless of post won't have to be wasted on this forum trying to get dishonest people to accept the obvious.

I don't believe it would lead to a slippery slope if you call out dishonesty only in terms of debate, like the aspects I mentioned in post #1 of this thread.

[Angel]

Nobody should be accusing anybody of dishonesty on the forum ... even if one could prove it. We should be arguing about ideas, not about forum participants.

Do you agree that dishonesty is bad and that no one should be dishonest in a debate?


In my view, a debate without logic, evidence, and honesty is a debate that will NOT go anywhere just like how some debates turn out on Youtube. A person being dishonest will inevitably make invalid points since of course they won't accept valid points when it goes against their personal interest. The debate will inevitably get stuck on trying to get someone to accept simple facts as opposed to making progress towards the truth. You say that you don't want to make it a debate about a person then how about we make it about what dishonesty causes, like distorting ideas, making invalid/inconsistent claims/statements, dodging/ignoring a relevant question/evidence that proves a case, etc. Do you think letting people on this forum who REPEATEDLY engage in this behavior leads to the "the pursuit of knowledge and TRUTH ... through civil and ENGAGING debate" that you advertise in the subtitle of this forum? Or does it just lead to frustrating people who try to be honest and reinforces this bad behavior and creates a bad example for others?

I can see if you weren't able to do something about this issue, but surely an omnipotent and benevolent Otseng is willing and able. I'll refrain from drawing the logical conclusion if you are able but unwilling.

[instantc]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

And that worked out for you by spending many posts trying to debate someone who seems for now to have had no interests in accepting what you were saying to begin with. YOU were the one to get moderator comments and warnings in the process. Even I had to spend MANY posts trying to explain to a so called weak atheists how saying that "Gods don't exist" meant that the person had some view on God. Had there been a rule in place then countless of post won't have to be wasted on this forum trying to get dishonest people to accept the obvious.

True, but I took it more as a personal challenge of trying to make my point and supporting references so clear that nobody could try to weasel around them. I don't think I succeeded, usually when someone is refusing to listen to what I have to say I just stop debating, that option is always open in the internet.

I don't believe it would lead to a slippery slope if you call out dishonesty only in terms of debate, like the aspects I mentioned in post #1 of this thread.

Perhaps you are right about this, but it might still take unreasonable effort from the admins to investigate dishonesty, as other breaches can be detected rather easily from a single post.

[otseng]

Do you agree that dishonesty is bad and that no one should be dishonest in a debate?

Sure. But the following are also bad:

- Straw man arguments
- Ridicule
- Sarcasm
- Not using BBCode correctly
- Arrogance
- Posturing
- Threatening people that a post report will be made
- People whining about the rules

These are actually easier to prove than someone being dishonest. But, there are no rules (yet) for these either.

[Angel]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

And that worked out for you by spending many posts trying to debate someone who seems for now to have had no interests in accepting what you were saying to begin with. YOU were the one to get moderator comments and warnings in the process. Even I had to spend MANY posts trying to explain to a so called weak atheists how saying that "Gods don't exist" meant that the person had some view on God. Had there been a rule in place then countless of post won't have to be wasted on this forum trying to get dishonest people to accept the obvious.

True, but I took it more as a personal challenge of trying to make my point and supporting references so clear that nobody could try to weasel around them. I don't think I succeeded, usually when someone is refusing to listen to what I have to say I just stop debating, that option is always open in the internet.

I don't believe it would lead to a slippery slope if you call out dishonesty only in terms of debate, like the aspects I mentioned in post #1 of this thread.

Perhaps you are right about this, but it might still take unreasonable effort from the admins to investigate dishonesty, as other breaches can be detected rather easily from a single post.

I think one of the problems here is the word "dishonest". If we refer to its effects instead, like REPEATEDLY distorting someone's position after being told the position, ignoring evidence, or simply repeating the same false claims, etc. The evidence to determine this should be high or clearly explained (the issue, post #s, etc). so that way the moderators don't have to do the work of figuring things out. The moderators should be able to figure out cases where it's as simple as someone claiming to be a weak atheist with no views on God and then claim at other times that God doesn't exist. There's really no excuse for why a moderator can't determine the dishonesty (or inconsistency if that word is less personal) in that.

[Angel]

Do you agree that dishonesty is bad and that no one should be dishonest in a debate?

Sure. But the following are also bad:

- Straw man arguments
- Ridicule
- Sarcasm
- Not using BBCode correctly
- Arrogance
- Posturing
- Threatening people that a post report will be made
- People whining about the rules

These are actually easier to prove than someone being dishonest. But, there are no rules (yet) for these either.

I'm not really against making rules for alll that you mentioned. I also don't view adding a rule as being about what's easy to prove but rather I look at it from how much it effects what's supposed to be a RATIONAL and productive debate. I would say honesty outweighs everything you put on your list just like using logic and evidence would. For instance, if you did not have the rule about supporting your claims, then anyone could get away with saying anything. But it also takes honesty to advance in a debate by discarding false views and moving on with correct views or simply keep silent until you have what you believe to be a reasonable answer. Without honesty, you will have people being in denial about facts when they're presented with facts that go against their view. You'll have people distorting the facts, distorting people's positions, and from my experience there are MANY posts that are WASTED on this forum that involve trying to get someone to accept a SIMPLE and obvious fact. I shouldn't have to go through NUMEROUS posts to get someone to accept the fact that a weak atheist with NO views on God does not claim that God doesn't exist. One or two times can be dismissed as a lack of understanding but more than that is REPEATED behavior and then it becomes a problem.

[keithprosser3]

Don't let it get to you. There is more life than this board - I read that on one of the threads.

[Angel]

Don't let it get to you. There is more life than this board - I read that on one of the threads.

I actually come here to have my views tested and to watch others views tested. So you can say that I take it seriously esp. when or if Otseng wants to advertise this thread as being for mature debates (civil, engaging, etc). I was hoping that Otseng would see that my suggestions would help make debates more efficient here so that we could get to the truth quicker and better but it appears that he's currently unwilling. If I had it my way, I would not want a dishonest person posting on my threads because for people that don't know he's dishonest or haven't read the full debate, they will be misled.

Since Otseng is currently unwilling to add a rule on dishonesty, then I will post more evidence of people complaining of dishonesty or of people being in denial, inconsistent, etc (those are less personal words than "dishonest"). I already found 2 other members who have pretty much mentioned someone being dishonest. I encourage others to contribute here by posting evidence for this behavior, as well.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 38 by Angel]

You should either point out the inconsistencies and fallacies to the person you're debating with, or disengage with them. There's not much point in creating a thread of fallacies quoted from other threads. I suppose you could have a reverse donation thread, where people are noted for their inability to debate, but that doesn't seem like it would be in the spirit of this forum.

[keithprosser3]

I think a particularly annoying sort of poster is the bloke who doesn't know that he has been completely dished and done over in rational argument and is doing nothing except further and further exposing his (or her) ignorance and inability to lose gracefully with every increasingly fatuous post.

But enough about me.

I have often wished one could call a 'time out' and end a debate with a vote as to who has won. One reason threads drag on is that a loser drags things out until the winner just gives up. Having 'Last-man-standing' as the only way to end a debate encourages attrition over erudition, what?