The Nature of Debate

[liamconnor]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

[WinePusher]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

I'm not sure I fully understand what your friend is trying to say (based on what you wrote).

What you need to keep in mind is that you're debating random people over an internet forum. There are far more important things in life you should be concerned with than debating over the internet. If your goal is to convince randoms over the internet that your views are correct, or if your goal is to discover "truth" over an internet forum filled with randoms, that's never going to happen.

Now, if you are searching for the truth, then just read and learn more. You appear to be interested in history, so read more history, learn some classical languages, delve deeper into textual criticism and exegesis, etc. Debating randoms over the internet isn't going to help you gain any sort of truth.

However, if you are attempting to convince people of your views, then just give up. You're just going to frustrate yourself. Just treat this forum as a casual side hobby where you can express your views on certain topics and discuss these topics with others.

[H.sapiens]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

There is a difference between debate and dialectic, I much prefer the latter, but is too much work and takes too much training for most people, and the Mods must be drawn from the Guardians of the Republic.

When you find a dialectic forum please let me know.

[marco]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

It's a fine observation and obviously true to a great extent. Where there is competitiveness, there is desire to win, regardless of what people may say.

I play chess and my aim is to win. I don't relish winning against inferior opponents; that serves no purpose. Testing one's chess abilities and triumphing is a good exercise. But losing can teach lessons too.
Here it is sometimes good and instructive to LOSE, because then one's visits here are not pointless. We have learned something. From time to time people award credit to a post and doing this has nothing to do with winning but everything to do with appreciation. Your lawyer has no concern for this aspect.

So, Liam, your friend is right to some extent but misses out on the nicer parts of the activity.

[rikuoamero]

I wouldn't be surprised if a mod moved this thread to Random Ramblings or General Chat or Member's Only Chat, since this topic has only a very tangential relation to Christianity and Apologetics.

Anyway...

He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."

I can only speak for myself, and you probably won't believe me, but I did join this website seeking truth. I was part of another website, left that, and found this one and boy howdy do I vastly prefer this one! I wanted to be challenged. I had my worldview, my being an atheist, my non-belief in gods of any stripe and I wanted them to be challenged.
So I said to myself "I'm going to make the best damn arguments I can make. If what I believe is false, and what the Christians say is true, someone somewhere along the line will come along and knock my socks off. S/He'll provide evidence, logic, data or reasoning that neither I nor anybody I know can refute".
In other words, my own attempt at falsifiability, like one does when publishing a scientific paper and it goes through peer review.
To date, that hasn't happened. Every. Single. Christian. I've debated on this site, I've been able to counter. Not one single Christian on this site has, in my opinion, given satisfactory answers to questions I've asked. No-one has come along and done that 'knocking my socks off' thing I talked about
I've been on this site just short of a year at the time of this post. Other users have been on it for far longer and they're still non-believers.


Besides, your question can be swung around right back at you. Are you interested in seeking the truth, or are you satisfied that what you believe (the resurrection) is true and you're just interested in winning over us non-believers? Or are you somehow immune to this effect of internet forum debating?

[Zzyzx]

.

Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

I moved this thread to General Chat since it does not fit well in C&A -- though it is an appropriate topic for discussion (rather than debate).

The Forum itself intends to promote debate – not to “win� anything.

Otseng, its originator / owner / administrator had debated elsewhere and aspired to create a better, more “level field� forum for debate of religious issues (primarily). Although he is a Christian his site does not give favorable or preferential treatment to Christianity or any other theistic (or non-theistic) position.

After observing and participating for nearly a decade I conclude that he has been successful in creating the best Forum of its kind that I have encountered (among many) on the Internet.

Individual members who post have their own motivations for participating (perhaps multiple motivations) – including but not limited to:

Focus on “winning� points or debates
Proselytizing their religious convictions
Opposing religion or ranting against religion
Promoting their own or other websites or publications
Improving debate and communication skills
Exploring opposition positions
Reinforcing their own position
Intellectual / mental stimulation
Etc.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the Forum or its contributing members are motivated only by “winning� OR to compare debates to courtroom practices and attitudes.


Debaters / posters are greatly outnumbered by members and guests who observe / read without posting. Many threads receive thousands or tens of thousands of “views�. The most viewed topic has 157,000 views and several others are in that ballpark.

Readers who do not post are apparently not interested in “winning� – but MAY be interested in learning what others present and perhaps increasing their own knowledge base regarding religious issues.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

There is a half truth to this... perhaps a quarter truth. But the fundamental problem comes from your apparent assumption that YOU have the truth and are being frustrated by others who do not care about 'the truth.'

The problem, even with a lawyer, a naive and inexperienced one, is that he does not know the truth. He may think he does, but he does not know it. The courtroom, like science is an approximate way to find the truth, within certain rules of fairness and reliability. BTW, if you are going to relate what a lawyer says about this forum, it might be advisable to have him speak for himself.

The presumption of knowledge of the truth is a horrible place to start in pursuit of it.

[Divine Insight]

Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

I think it's true of humanity in general, and certainly not particular to this forum in general.

I totally agree with the description of a Lawyer. A defense lawyer's goal is to provide the best defense for his or her client, and certainly NOT to go into a courtroom as a "Defense Lawyer" seeking TRUTH.

~~~~~

An aside on the lawyer issue:

The proper way for a lawyer to refuse to defend someone they believe is guilty is to simply abandon the case and make it clear that they cannot defend the client in "Good Conscience". Even "Court Appointed Lawyers" can appeal to the judge for exemption on these grounds. And any judge who would refuse to exempt them on those grounds has no business being a judge.

~~~~~

Unfortunately many people who take defensive positions on topics will indeed defend them with total disregard for what might actually be true. Again this is human nature of the masses. Not to imply that every individual human will do this.

~~~~~

Another things to consider when it comes to "Debates" is that often times a person taking a particular side in a debate is already convinced of the truth of the position they support. Therefore they are not in the debate to "seek" truth since they already believe they have it. Instead they are in the debate to help educate those who don't already understand why something is true.

Mathematical debates are a very good example. If a mathematician goes into a debate to debate whether or not there can be a rational solution to the square root of time, that mathematicians already understand why his conclusions are true. The only thing left to do is expose why his opponent is wrong in thinking that there could be a rational solution to the square root of two.

I openly confess that this is precisely how I approach debates on Bible-based religions. Just as with the mathematician mentioned above, there is no doubt in my mind that I already hold the TRUTH. All that's left to do now is to demonstrate why this is necessarily true to those who don't already know it.

Note that my above position only holds true with respect to Bible-based religions and does not apply to any other concepts of "God" or other potential non-Bible-based religions.

~~~~~

I have found that many people will argue for these religions based upon a personal conviction that they simply believe them to be true based on personally experiences, feelings, emotion, etc. They even claim to have "logical arguments" to support their position but just like with arguments for a rational solution to the square root of two, those are never valid arguments.

~~~~~

Finally, what I have come to realize very quickly is that these so-called "Debate Forums" like this one on the internet are not really "Debates" at all. They aren't moderated (other than for civility) and no one is keeping track of who made logically sound arguments and who didn't.

In fact, 99% of the exchanges on these forums being called "Debates" is actually nothing more than "Denial" that irrefutable logical points have indeed been made.

So even though they call these forums, "Debate Forums", they are really nothing more than "Chat Forums" where people just chat with each other whilst most of them totally refuse to acknowledge any valid logical points that have been made.

So these aren't "Debates" they are merely people "Chatting" whilst totally refusing to acknowledge logically sound points.

Fortunately the logical points do "Stick" in the subconscious of those who refuse to acknowledge them during the chat. And over time they begin to realize why their positions are not logically sound. But if they are an extremely emotional religious person they will most likely choose to go with their emotions rather than with logic anyway.

[Danmark]

Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

I think it's true of humanity in general, and certainly not particular to this forum in general.

I totally agree with the description of a Lawyer. A defense lawyer's goal is to provide the best defense for his or her client, and certainly NOT to go into a courtroom as a "Defense Lawyer" seeking TRUTH.

~~~~~

An aside on the lawyer issue:

The proper way for a lawyer to refuse to defend someone they believe is guilty is to simply abandon the case and make it clear that they cannot defend the client in "Good Conscience". Even "Court Appointed Lawyers" can appeal to the judge for exemption on these grounds. And any judge who would refuse to exempt them on those grounds has no business being a judge.

This is not correct. Lawyers frequently defendants in criminal cases tho' their private opinion [a matter of no consequence] may be that the client did what he is charged with doing. The lawyer may not put on testimony the lawyer knows is perjured. If a client tells his lawyer he is going to lie on the stand, the client still has a right to testify, but the lawyer should go to the judge with his dilemma. The lawyer may be permitted to withdraw, but more likely the judge will tell him to remain on the case, but to provide no assistance in eliciting the perjured testimony. BTW, in 35 years of defending people charged with felonies I have NEVER knowingly had a client take the stand and lie. They may have been lying but I certainly did not know it. Usually the client opts not to testify. That is the client's choice and his right.

The lawyer's job is to defend the Constitution and his clients' rights under it, and to challenge unfavorable testimony and to present testimony [if any there is] in a light most favorable to his client.

The lawyer's opinion of his client's guilt or innocence is irrelevant and a lawyer is not allowed to give his opinion on the matter.

[Danmark]

Laymen frequently misunderstand a lawyer's duty and his legal ethics. Even some lawyers fail to understand, particularly when they sound off in an area they have little experience in.
Here is one of many articles on the subject of lawyers' opinions vs. their legal duties:

Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. (See Canon 7, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.

In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime. Just because the defendant says he did it doesn’t make it so. [I have been in exactly this situation. Not only was my client found not guilty, I proved he was factually innocent as well,] tho' it is not the defendant's burden to prove anything.] The defendant may be lying to take the rap for someone he wants to protect, or may be guilty, but only of a different and lesser crime than the one being prosecuted by the district attorney. A defendant may have done the act in question, but the client may have a valid defense that would exonerate him. For these reasons, among others, defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime. Instead, the lawyer uses the facts to put on the best defense possible and leaves the question of guilt to the judge or jury.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... uilty.html