One of the most interesting of epistemological arts is the art of debate. While we all like a good fight, we also like a fair fight, and those of us who are more interested in truth than victory like a civil debate rather than a heated, ad hominem attack-fest. Even contentious issues can be calmly and intelligently debated.
The late 1800’s and early 1900’s were a hotbed of public debate, especially on religion, and we can learn a lot about the art of debate from studying that time. One valuable and interesting book from that time period is Levi Hedge’s Elements of Logick: A Summary of the General Principles and Different Modes of Reasoning (1855) in which the author, among other helpful items, includes his rules for debate. This list of rules took on its own life and became Hedge’s Rules of Honorable Controversy. If we followed these rules, epithets like bigot, pig, pervert, and miscreant would be less oft used.
BONUS: You can also find a lot of advice for Christian debaters, including Hedge’s rules, in the booklet Christian Contend for thy Cause.
Hedge’s Rules of Honorable Controversy
1. The terms, in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.
If this is not done, the dispute is liable to be, in a great degree, verbal. Arguments will be misapplied, and the controversy protracted, because the parties engaged in it have different apprehensions of the question.
2. The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right.
In the heat of controversy, men are apt to forget the numberless sources of error, which exist in every controverted subject, especially of theology and metaphysics. Hence arise presumptions, confidence, and arrogant language; all which obstruct the discovery of truth.
3. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided.
All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions…
4. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged….
Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect, in respect to the question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil… They indicate in him, who uses them, a mind hostile to the truth; for they prevent even solid arguments from receiving the attention to which they are justly entitled.
5. No one has aright to accuse his adversary of indirect motive.
Arguments are to be answered, whether he, who offers them, be sincere or not; especially as his want of sincerity, if real, could not be ascertained. To inquire into his motives, then, is useless. To ascribe indirect ones to him is … hurtful.
6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.
If an absurd consequence be fairly deductible from any doctrine, it is rightly concluded that the doctrine itself is false; but it is not rightly concluded that he who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such a case, would be, that he had never made the deduction; and that, if he had made it, he would have abandoned the original doctrine.
7. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.
And I would like to suggest, that if we all agree to these rules (I do), that we enforce them by calling one another on disobeying them. If many of us agree, I can put that in a "Rules for Commenting" section – not sure that it would do any good, but it might among regulars.
I try to abide by all these rules when I am posting in forums such as this one you provide (where there is debate). I am sure I am guilty of the dis"honorable" at times, and I am more than happy to be told so. You may have to show me in depth, though, as I am sometimes slow to recognize it!
"If we followed these rules, epithets like bigot, pig, pervert, and miscreant would be less oft used."
Maybe if you were nicer you wouldn't get called these things. You reap what you sow Seeker and all I've seen you sow are bad feelings from most of the regular readers here. Not only do you sow bad feelings, I think you actually cultivate them. First you drove FCL away, then Sam, now Louis. I think even Stewart, who is a very rational and understanding person, was driven away by you for a while. You know you are a lot like sports caster Dick Vitale. Dick doesn't know the meaning of the word "whisper." I don't think you know the meaning of the word "tact." It's your blog, so why be a troll here; always fishing for emotional reactions from regulars?
Seeker,
"If we followed these rules, epithets like bigot, pig, pervert, and miscreant would be less oft used."
You are what you are. I highly doubt hiding behind these rules will do any good in terms of debate or being willing to discuss issues. If we cannot describe something to be racist, discriminatory, etc, then what good does it do? Those that perceive discussion to be that way or are otherwise feel racial or social discrination by what is discussed here should just repress it? I think not.
No, the reality is that you don't like it when people call out what they see. In the recent discussions, since you mention bigot, I called out exactly what I saw. That you don't like it or don't agree with it is no surprise. Those that are racists or display discriminatory behavior seldom do…they just delfect, ingore, or justify it. You have done all three.
No, rules will not work. They will only work to control the conversation in a way that is less objectionable to you and deny the reality of those that are opposed to your way of thinking.
Cineaste,
Maybe if you were nicer you wouldn't get called these things. You reap what you sow Seeker and all I've seen you sow are bad feelings from most of the regular readers here. Not only do you sow bad feelings, I think you actually cultivate them.
I am in full agreement. Actually, given the way things have gone, I miffed enough to mention something that Seeker said to me once. That is he feels that he is justified in taking a tougher stance, to be relentless, ungiving in an online forum. This relentless nature is something that I have seldom seen in my real world experiences with him. I cannot fathom how someone that has such a kind soul can be so mean online. It just astonishes me.
(I am sorry Seeker, but I have reached the point where I just can hold that back anymore)
First you drove FCL away, then Sam, now Louis. I think even Stewart, who is a very rational and understanding person, was driven away by you for a while.
I don't think you know the meaning of the word "tact." It's your blog, so why be a troll here; always fishing for emotional reactions from regulars?
I echo those sentiments. In the end this blog serves one purpose and this is for Seeker to spout out his view of the world in the shadows. Instead of coming out and owning his own words, he hides behind the shadows and spouts out hate.
This is a blog meant for Seeker-followers…not discussion. I pity Seeker's lack of tact and diplomacy. I have wondered aloud how he thinks he will make it as a preacher without those tools. Seeker really doesn't have them.
I am sorry, but I am on the verge of joining the list of people to be driven away. What's worse is that I think this forever alters my perception of the person I know in real life, which really is a shame.
Seeker, I do not want or expect a reply to my comments. I will not read them. I am gone for awhile and may not come back.
– Silver
One final point…as I started to exit the building…I stumbled across a cartoon that Cineaste linked to in the whole NASA debate fiasco that Aaron, Seeker, and I became embroiled in.
The cartoon, entitled the Modern World caught my eye, I read it and posted this:
Cineaste,
This is my last comment before bugging out. I think that cartoon accurately captures the state of rationale thinking in the United States.
The people of the United States has lost their ability to engage in reasoned debate detached from religious and political rhetoric. The ability to do this is a cornerstone in the Founder's belief that this country could survive as a Representative Republic.
Sadly, that cornerstone has cracked, been chipped, and is now being eaten away. The discussions by people on both sides that read this blog directly illustrate my point. Neither the believers/die hard conservatives or the far left non-believers are able to engage in rational discussion checking religion and rhetoric at the door.
It really is interesting in that it took only a few pages of picking up a book that covers this discussion that I saw the exact same parallels it describes on this blog.
This really embodies what I believe to be the problem with some of the authors & commenters on this blog as well as a broader societal problem with the United States. We as a people have lost our ability to reason and engage in reason based discussion…without religious dogma or political rhetoric.
As a citizen of this country and a student of our founding, evolution, and rise to power, I find this development quite sad. It will ultimately be our undoing.
Silver, signing off.
Modern World
CINEASTE SAID
Maybe if you were nicer you wouldn't get called these things.
You've entirely missed the idea behind the rules. The fact that YOU draw such pejorative conclusions and so easily use them reflects on your character, not mine. And as a recent book remarks, real men are not nice, but good. I should not have to pussy foot around you because every counter argument I make offends you personally. I'm sorry that you so easily resort to epithets, it just shows your lack of readiness for serious moral discussions.
Not only do you sow bad feelings, I think you actually cultivate them.
Aww, did-ums get his feewings hurt? Look, I may instigate and use purposely loaded language, and am guilty of baiting, but you own your own feelings. Stop wearing your emotions on your sleeve to make people feel guilty about disagreeing with you. It's weak. I won't sit by while theological hacks butcher the scriptures with bogus exegesis or argue that evolution is some proven fact. I hate lies. If that language is too strong for you, you should go get a 400 haircut at a beauty salon where your hairdresser can coddle you with the latest gossip. Ok, maybe I do instigate a bit.
you drove FCL away, then Sam, now Louis.
Maybe so. I'm not subtle, but honestly, when's the last time I called you a pig? If you were the owner of this site, I might be tempted to leave too. So why call me names when I don't even stoop that low? Is my haircut remark above half as bad as calling you a pig?
But it's also a matter of heat/kitchen. Can I help it if I rebuffed FCL's pro-gay theology my own application of hermeneutics? I engaged his ideas, and found them wanting. He grew tired of peddling his brand of permissive, grace-without-holiness imbalanced doctrines.
Can I help that an atheist gets tired of peddling his revisionist history and undiscerning anti-religionist blather without being called on it? Is it wrong to confront his consistent and purposeful misunderstanding of Christian thought because he can't see outside of his narrow, negative stereotype?
Now, with Louis, I probably could have done a better job. Lesson learned. I liked him. But I still disagree with his politics.
Are there any conservatives or other readers in the stands who want to weigh in on this? How do I need to change my tone or approach? Examples?
I think your posting those rules and asking for help is a great show of character. You openly admit you can be carried away in your posts and by encouraging others to help you when you are not following the objective rules you are being FAIR.
I have debated in other places before (and with liberal-minded people who did not agree with me on the hot topics!), and I honestly have never experienced such remarks as I have here. I absolutely do not mind if you call my argument discriminatory, I will try to prove it otherwise. But when you call me a bigot (which I am NOT!) then what can I say???
Seeker, I personally think you do need to be a bit more understanding in your posts. People will be hurt when they hear someone saying they are wrong. You seem a little rash at times. (I think we all can get that way, I know I do at times.)
Calling what people do an illness or perversion won't get you very far with anyone. It just seems a bit mean.
The problem is not that the arguments do not need to happen, but that we are not intellectually equipped, nor equipped in character to not take personal offense when our arguments are challenged.
I agree. (We meaning every one of us at certain times, which is why we need to remind each other when we are not being nice!)
For Seeker
Cin, I've seen the free hugs campaign, and it's lovely, as is the song w/ the video.
The problem? It's love without truth. While we all need more love and acceptances, free hugs as an ideology is totatlly incomplete. It is not enough to change the world, not matter how sentimental and fuzzy we feel. I think I posted on the free hugs thing a while back.
Free hugs won't stop us from killing the unborn. It won't help us resist the ideological onslaught of atheistic unbelief or Islamic fundamentalism. But strong, loving, consistent application of truth and reason will.
What is truth?