Debating Forum versus Discussion Forum

Discussion Forums:

Discussion forums generally consist of a group of people who all share a common viewpoint or interest and are simply exchanging views on that common viewpoint or interest. These forums tend to be benign places where views are not challenged but simply accepted and discussed. They are more of an exchange of knowledge amongst people who typically share a lot of beliefs in common.

Some "debate" forums are actually discussion forums because they don't challenge or deconstruct and applying the term "debate" to them is a misnomer.

A Discussion Forum can be used for the purpose of proselytizing, advocating for, or presenting a belief or viewpoint with no challenges and just friendly discussion amongst people with similar or even diverging worldviews but where there is a commonality of interest.

Debate Forums:

Debate forums generally consist of two or more groups with diametrically opposing views.

A true Debate Forum will consist of threads where the OP states a belief or position on a topic relevant to the Forum.

The members with opposing views will both challenge and deconstruct the belief for the purposes of refuting it.

Various methods can be used to accomplish this but the most common tends to be by deconstructing the argument in order to demonstrate it's weaknesses and fallacies.

Those members with supporting views will defend by substantiating the belief as well as refute the challenges and deconstructions by either demonstrating their weaknesses and fallacies or through other methods.

A Debate Forum cannot be used for the purpose of proselytizing, advocating for, or presenting a belief or viewpoint without the expectation that everything said is up for challenge and deconstruction and those doing the advocating are obligated to substantiate and refute.

Of course, people can join a debate forum and only engage in discussion but then they really shouldn't be surprised when their presence, agenda, or motivations are questioned or when debators are offended and insulted by their refusal to debate or often even to discuss their position/beliefs/claims.

Particularly since basic logic would dictate that people who have no interest in debating don't normally join debating forums, they join discussion groups.

AvC Debate Forum - The "Teams".

While AvC is called Atheism versus Christianity, this name is historical and the group has evolved to include those with any and all religious beliefs, other supernatural beliefs, and atheists with a variety of viewpoints from materialist to supernaturalist.

So, the teams can be roughly defined as follows:

Theist "Team": Anyone with a god belief of any kind, including those who believe that they are a god (yes we have them).

Atheist "Team": Anyone without a god belief of any kind, most of whom are materialists and/or naturalists but also includes dualists and those who believe in ghosts and other supernatural entities that are not gods (yes we have those too).

Which team you are member of is determined by your answer to the question, Do you believe in the existence of god(s)?

Debate Types.

Note that there are two types of Debates: Formal (structured) and Informal (unstructured).


Formal Debates have some or all of the following features:

1. Referees.
2. Time Limits.
3. Alternate between Teams with members taking turns.

These kinds of debates occur on our Back Up site.

http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-v-christianity?hl=en

A Moderator must agree to manage the Debate.
The Debate (Formal Debate thread) is restricted to two members with opposing views, both of whom have agreed to participate.
A Peanut Gallery thread is created to allow other members to comment on the Formal Debate.

Time limits are not imposed but the Debate is structured otherwise.


Informal Debates do not have any formal structure and the onus is on each participant to follow the standards and guidelines of argumentation.

This is a reasonable expectation for mature adults who are voluntary participants in a debating forum and where such things are implicit in the nature of the forum even if not stated.

The Main Atheism vs Christianity site engages in Informal, unstructured Debates.

Debating Fundamentals

Argumentation

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

What is Argumentation?

"The act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles known, admitted, or proved to be true. "

Debate is a form of argumentation. That is what we are doing here.

We are "arguing" but our "arguments" should be and are hopefully based on the formal structure provided by Argumentation theory.

Argumentation has a long and very honorable history of tradition in human societies going back to the Greek, Harrappan, and many other ancient civilizations and it requires critical thinking.

"Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.

Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally."

NOTE TO BROCK: Extracted from the above quote:

"It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal."

NOTE TO OTHERS Re: the God On Trial Thread: Extracted from the above quote:

"Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally."

"Internal structure of arguments

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following

   1. a set of assumptions or premises
   2. a method of reasoning or deduction and
   3. a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion."

"Key components of argumentation

1. Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

2. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3. Establishing the "burden of proof" —determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

4. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.

5. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’ argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument."

Debating Rules.

Note that these rules are not one's which AvC members are required to follow. They have never been discussed or approved by members here.

The approach on this site is for a free, open, unstructured debating environment where each individual is free to adopt their own style, strategy and approach.

This is simply an example of modern Dialectic Rules which individuals can choose to adopt if they wish to.

I, personally, think that following them would be a good idea and would lead to more serious, rational discussions.

"Pragma-dialectics

One rigorous modern version of dialectic has been pioneered by scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, under the name pragma-dialectics. The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that, if followed, will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions. Frans van Eemeren, the late Rob Grootendorst, and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea.

The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given by ten rules for critical discussion, all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion (from Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, p. 182-183):

Freedom rule: parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints.

Burden of proof rule: a party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.

Standpoint rule: a party’ attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

Relevance rule: a party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.

Unexpressed premise rule: a party may not disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party.

Starting point rule: a party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

Argument scheme rule: a party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.

Validity rule: a party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises

Closure rule: a failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint.

Usage rule: a party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’ formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

The theory postulates this as an ideal model, and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact. It can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong, that is, when the rules are violated. Any such violation will constitute a fallacy. Albeit not primarily focused on fallacies, pragma-dialectics provides a systematic approach to deal with them in a coherent way."

Logical Fallacies in Argumentation.

"What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above."

Source: An Encyclopedia Of Logical Fallacies: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/


Some Links which list and provide explanations and/or examples of Logical Fallacies:

The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Wikipedia's List Of Fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A List Of Fallacious Arguments: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

A Google search using the term "logical fallacies" yields lots of other sites as well.

Constructive Debating Strategies

These can potentially lead to a consensus or at least a positive debate where knowledge can be gained by both sides.

Rationalist and Empiricist approach (can include the use of analogies)

This is effective when the OP has provided a logically valid argument:

1. Premise
2. Substantiation (Reasoning)
3. Valid conclusion (which follows from the Premise and Substantiation)

Note. That a logically valid argument is not necessarily one with a correct conclusion, or even a rational one.

Arguments can be logically valid, irrational and the conclusions wrong.

This is where deconstructing the argument and determining the weaknesses in it / problems with it come into play.

In addition, some arguments which are constructed correctly are based on logical fallacies, so exposing these logical fallacies is important.

Some claims can be identified as logical fallacies, in and of themselves, even though an actual argument may not be presentedl.


Absurdist approach (can include sarcasm and the use of parodies)

This is effective when the OP has not provided a logically valid argument or in most cases, any argument.

This uses a comparative or parallel claim which is absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of the presented claim.

One can also use sarcasm to demonstrate inherent absurdities. Well written sarcastic one-liners can effectively shred claims which are sheer nonsense and do so quickly.

Constructing parodies of claims is a creative, time honored tradition, and also a very effective way of exposing the absurdity behind certain claims.

This approach may also be an effective way to deal with demagogy.


Rudeness

It happens. Debates get heated and people get frustrated. Best advice? Get over it.

Sometimes it's used deliberately in the context of deconstructing or presenting an argument as a means of emphasizing a point.

For the most part, it's irrelevant and can and should be ignored.

The concern should be focusing on deconstructing the argument, exposing its' weaknesses and fallacies.

The issue is whether the argument or the deconstruction is correct and not whether it's presented politely or rudely, that is, the content is more important than the form.

Note that personal attacks often indicate a weakness in the argument and the inability of the opponent to deal with that weakness so when this occurs, strategically, it's actually a good time to present a calm, strong well thought out and substantiated argument which ignores the personal attack.

There is, however, an argument to be made that one can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

There's also an argument to be made that some people really do need the shock value for the message to register.

Demagogy

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy

What is demagogy?

"The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.""

A more detailed description of Demagogy would be:

"Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δu951 μu945 γu969 γu943 α from δu8134 μu959 ςdēos "people" and ἄu947 εu953 νagein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes."

Destructive Debating Strategies

These are generally intended to derail the debate, silence an opponent or team on an issue, discredit an opponent or team, discredit the site for the purposes of using that to recruit members to another site, or simply taking "pleasure" in disrupting the group, and are part and parcel of a Demogogic style of debate.

Accusations of lying without supporting those accusations or supporting them with material that doesn't actually support them in the hopes that no-one will bother to check.

Starting one or more threads on the topic which contain personal attacks against an individual or group in the subject line in order to "poison the well" before the accused can respond.

Accusing the opposing side of engaging in the dishonest strategies that you are actively engaging in, in order to deflect people's attention and prevent them from noticing what you are doing. ("sleight of hand").

Posting inflammatory content intended to provoke an inflammatory response from either an individual opponent, a group of individual opponents, or the opposing team and/or stalking them with it throughout the site and into threads where it is off topic.

The Hitlerian Big Lie strategy is, by definition, a strategy of demogogues and demagogy.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Gross exageration of and/or extreme misrepresentation of and/or blatantly lying about a position taken in order to lay the foundation for justifying and legitimizing any of the above behavior amongs other things.

Note: That there is difference between those who use the following as an actual strategy and those who occasionally fall into the trap of fighting like with like in response to destructive behavior.

Falling into the trap of fighting like with like can, at best, end in a draw, making both parties look bad. So it's advised to avoid this trap if you are not, in fact, a demagogue.

The reason for this is that the back up strategy of demagogues is to turn around and accuse their target(s) of being demagogues.

When you fight like with like, in the case of demagoguery, this accusation then has credibility whether you initiated the exchange or not.

These strategies are often used by trolls, cyberstalkers and other Internet Wildlife although not very intelligently.

Note that the targets of their abuse are almost always the Site Administrators and/or the Site Administration policies and/or the Moderators and/or popular and well respected regular Posters.

They vary in subtlety and specifics depending on "what works" but the "Repeat a groundless and baseless Lie loudly and as often as possible, and incite the ignorant to follow", is a common strategy.

Note: Those who complain loudest about others using these strategies

Or

Make the most accusations that others are using them

Are, generally speaking, the ones who are actively engaged in using these strategies.

It's simply a cheap and shoddy attempt to deflect attention from what they are doing and redirect it dishonestly on to their target.

Demagogic Debating Rules

"Magma-dialectics (a parody of Pragma-dialectics)

The dialectical conception of unreasonableness is given by ten rules for critical disruption, all being instrumental for achieving a maximally disrupted and hostile environment for debate and/or discussion.

No Freedom rule: parties must prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints.

No Burden of proof rule: a party that advances a standpoint is not obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.

No Standpoint rule: a party’ attack on a standpoint must not relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

No Relevance rule: a party may not defend a standpoint by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.

No Unexpressed premise rule: a party may disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party.

No Starting point rule: a party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

No Argument scheme rule: a party may regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.

No Validity rule: a party may not use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises

No Closure rule: a failed defense of a standpoint must not result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must not result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint.

No Usage rule: a party must use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must not interpret the other party’ formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

When in doubt or all else fails...

...Lie.  Whether the lie is subtle or blatant doesn't matter.

When caught in your lie.

1. Get morally outraged and lie more.
2. Never, never, ever acknowledge even the possibility that you may be wrong.
3. Accuse the opposition of being the liar as often as possible.

Logical Fallacies in Demagogy.

They use them all and generously.

The only logical fallacy in demagogy is to not use logical fallacies.


Rudeness

Complaints about "rudeness", "being impolite", "swearing", "cursing", "incivility" and the demands for restrictions on this behavior are the Holy Grail of the Demagogue and a reliable standby when their other attempts to derail and disrupt fail miserably or they get their asses kicked in a debate where their base unsupported assertions and/or inflammatory statements are exposed for what they are.

And of course, in the process of complaining about / objecting to this incivility they will engage in the rudest, most insulting, impolite, uncivil behavior including cursing and swearing.

A favorite strategy is the misuse of and the creation of their straw man version of "ad hominem" to support their claims.

Calling someone a "dick" or calling them a "moron" because they believe something is not an "ad hominem" attack.

Saying that they are a "moron" and that's why their claim is wrong is an "ad hominem" attack.

Even "morons" can make correct claims sometimes.

If the "rudeness" takes the form of a strong personal attack without any deconstruction or debate of the argument/claim/position, or, a strong personal attack is made with a grossly exaggerated straw man version of the argument/claim/position, this is often an indication that the opponent is a demagogue.

In this case, an alert should register and depending on how the debate proceeds, a decision regarding ending the debate should be considered (if possible, that is, and assuming the opponent is not a demagogue laying the foundation for using cyberstalking strategies).

Propaganda Techniques.

Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

A component part of Demagogy.

As in the case of other demagogic strategies a common practice of demagogues is to falsely accuse others of using the following techniques while using those techniques themselves in order to deflect attention from their own activity.

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

Bandwagon:

Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

Card stacking:

Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

Glittering Generalities:

Glittering generalities was one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also occurs very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in "defense of democracy" they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words.

Lesser of Two Evils:

The "lesser of two evils" technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime to convince people of the need for sacrifices or to justify difficult decisions. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group. One idea or proposal is often depicted as one of the only options or paths. When confronted with this technique, the subject should consider the value of any proposal independently of those it is being compared with.

Name Calling:

Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.

Pinpointing the Enemy:

Pinpointing the enemy is used extremely often during wartime, and also in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.

Plain Folks:

The plain folks propaganda technique was another of the seven main techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. The propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes. Also, the propagandist, especially during speeches, may attempt to increase the illusion through imperfect pronunciation, stuttering, and a more limited vocabulary. Errors such as these help add to the impression of sincerity and spontaneity. This technique is usually most effective when used with glittering generalities, in an attempt to convince the public that the propagandist views about highly valued ideas are similar to their own and therefore more valid. When confronted by this type of propaganda, the subject should consider the proposals and ideas separately from the personality of the presenter.

Simplification (Stereotyping):

Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.

Testimonials:

Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.

Transfer:

Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.

Bibliography

    The Science of Modern Propaganda. http://www.propaganda101.com/ Last Visited: August, 2001.

    Lee, Alfred McLung; Lee, Elizabeth Bryan. Propaganda Analysis. http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/ (subdirectory). Last Visited: August, 2001.

    Dorje, Carl. Propaganda Techniques. http://serendipity.magnet.ch/more/propagan.html Last Visited: August, 2001.