Debating 101 - Even More Preliminaries

What is a debate?

Any instance in which two (or more) parties disagree and the disagreeing parties try to persuade others of the accuracy of his/her position or dissuade others as to the accuracy of opposing positions.

Formal debates generally have predefined rules that each party agrees to. They are often timed (or limited by wordcount) and follow a preset format. For instance: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/great-debate.html

Informal debates are arguments with few (if any) pre-defined rules and are open to any and everyone. I have been in debates that have raged on for months. I have participated in debates in which teams argued the respective positions rather than individuals. Internet message boards, email listservs (ex. yahoo groups), sites like facebook - even comments on blogs - tend to produce informal debate.

What is an argument?

A proper argument has 3 parts:
*question/proposal
*supporting evidence
*conclusion

Please note: a question asked then answered with a conclusion that does not include supporting evidence is not an argument. An unsupported argument is an opinion. Everybody's entitled to their opinions. Even stupid, wrong-headed opinions, LOL. But an opinion does not trump a properly supported argument (or counter-argument). That simple.

If your opponent p'shaws your demands for supporting evidence by saying they are only stating their opinions, the best response is to state that you have provided evidence that proves his/her opinion is wrong.

What are logical fallacies?

Logical fallacies are errors in logic. They are flaws in critical thinking. Logical fallacies invalidate whatever conclusions are drawn from them so it's in your best interests to review and learn to identify them. Not just to point out the flaws in your opponents' arguments, but also to avoid comitting them in your own arguments.

The list I have bookmarked is http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html But it isn't comprehensive. Just do a search on "logical fallacies" and you'll find a treasure trove of sites explaining them.

How do you use logical fallacies in debates? The best way is to first identify the logical fallacy your opponent committed in his argument. Provide a definition of that logical fallacy (and a link to that definition and/or more information about the fallacy). Explicitly state that your opponent's argument is, therefore, invalid. You can also provide an extreme example of that fallacy to show in living color why that fallacy makes that argument invalid, but I usually don't bother unless my opponent responds by arguing that the fallacy isn't logically invalid at all.

How do you support an argument?

1. Appeal to Authority. Authorities are scholars and experts in the field. Appeals to authority are valid as long as authorities do not disagree to any significant degree. (Every field of study has some level of disagreement and minor disagreement is acceptable.) You may wish to note minor disagreement in your argument and briefly respond as a pre-emptive measure. If authorities disagree and that disagreement is significant, however, appeals to authority are logically fallacious for both you and your opponent. Note the disagreement in your argument and address the subject of disagreement directly yourself.

Cite multiple authorities. Provide quotes of at least one (the best quote), then list other experts who share that position to illustrate scholarly/scientific concensus. To hammer home strong support for your position among the experts, provide a short quote (less than a sentence) in " " in the body of your paragraph, which leads into a longer blockquote (with main ideas emphasized in bold). After the blockquote, present your list of authorities who share that position.

How much should you quote? Unless you are dealing in a forum in which ellipsises (cutting material by using ". . ." in a quote) aren't trusted, your quotes should be as brief as possible. Readers generally don't read long paragraphs, especially quotes from authorities. They read the first sentence, the last sentence, and skim the rest. If your quote is long, use emphasis (bold, color, etc) to draw reader attention to the main points.

If you use ellipses (". . .") to cut material from any quotation, be prepared to fill in those ellipses should your quote from authority be challenged. Filling those ellipses is your responsibility. Absolutely no whining if your ellipses are challenged. Your willingness to fill those ellipses increases your apparent credibility.

Any time one of your authorities is challenged, it is your responsibility to prove your authority is a scholar or expert in the field whose conclusions should be trusted. Cite academic credentials, published works, professional awards/accolades, peer review/respect, etc. Again, no whining. Again, your willingness to establish the veracity of your authority adds to your apparent credibility.

Use the best references available to you and your readers. An article in a scholarly/scientific journal will generally trump a basic dictionary entry, for instance, but that doesn't mean that basic dictionary entries aren't useful. If you're building a complex case, it's wise to begin with basic supports. If those basic supports are challenged, however, be prepared to thoroughly back them up with your big guns.

Generally speaking, big guns are widely recognized/respected books that are heavily footnoted and articles in scholarly/scientific journals. Don't use sources that are outdated unless doing so is in your best interests (ex. proving historicity of your argument). Don't use rare, esoteric references that would not be reasonably available to the average reader. If you must use such references (which I highly discourage), be prepared to quote surrounding context of any quote at great length or best case, scans of your quoted material.

Other theological supports from authority can include but certainly aren't limited to: Scripture (given that both parties recognize the Bible authoratively), commentaries, theological dictionaries/encyclopedias, lexicon entries, pattern of usage (where there is significant evidence of a pattern), ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) lit, Bible comparisons (for scope of translation variance and general trends only), archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and any relevant information regarding the culture or history of that time.

2. Logical constructs. Not for the beginning debater and definitely not until you've reviewed logical fallacies. Logical constructs are just a list of premises - steps, if you will - that lead to your conclusion. These are argumentst that resemble something along the lines of:

A is true
B is true
If A and B are true, then C is true.
If C is true, Conclusion X is valid.

Logical constructs are not for the faint of heart. You should be prepared to defend each and every one of the premises leading up to your conclusion. Above all else, your logic must be sound.

3. Examples & Analogies. This method of support should come with flashing neon warning labels: use only as a last resort. It is far better, IMO, to concede the argument with your dignity intact than resort to examples and analogies. Examples and analogies can properly be used to support an argument, but choosing valid examples and analogies is extremely difficult. And in my experience, examples and analogies are challenged the most. But, if you're determined...

Examples must be representative. The more examples you use, the stronger your case will be. You should also pre-emptively consider and rebut possible counter-examples.

Analogies must be relevant. The similarities you seek to strike must be both material and important or the argument falls.

Personally, I avoid examples and analogies as a general rule. I've used them, yes. But rarely.

"Winning" a debate...

If you're waiting for an explicit admission of defeat from your opponent, I recommend not holding your breath. I've honestly never seen it happen. I've seen specific points of an argument conceded and I've conceded specific points myself. But I've never, ever seen an entire argument conceded. The closest I can remember to personally conceding an argument is agreeing that my evidence wasn't strong enough to "prove" my case, but even then, I think I argued that the evidence I presented was "persuasive."

So...how do you win?

If winning is your primary goal, you need to utterly discredit your opponent's argument. Don't just prove the position is wrong. Prove it is wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. Then, you prove your position is right beyond any reasonable doubt.

How do you know you've won?

Trust me. You just know. If you have to ask, you didn't win. Not decisively, at any rate. And that's okay. Because winning should not be your focus. Understanding the subject more thoroughly should be the whole point and purpose of debate. Be open to new ideas. I'm not saying you should accept new ideas, but give new ideas a fair hearing. Examine the opposing parties' evidence. Even if you disagree with that evidence or can show it to be invalid, it's another brick to add to the foundation underlying your argument. You'll grasp that argument and perhaps be better able to answer it in future. Ideally, both parties will walk away from the debate with a more thorough grasp of both positions. And in doing so, you both have won.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's very nice. But how do you know you've won, right? Really. LOL

Okay, a few rules of thumbs.

If your opponent suddenly claims that their position is now only their "opinion" (even though they've been arguing their "opinion" for days, weeks, and/or months), you've probably won.

If your opponent starts ridiculing you or attacking you personally and those attacks are the ONLY components of their replies, you've probably won.

If your opponent claims s/he cannot argue with you because you believe you are right, you've probably won. (Both parties enter any debate believing they are right.)

If your opponent criticizes the thoroughness of your argument, you've probably won.

If your opponent abruptly leaves the argument and fails to come back to it within a reasonable amount of time even though your opponent is not othewise absent from the environment in which the debate occurs, the odds are in your favor that you've won. But this is no guarantee. The attention of the opposing party may have been diverted to another debate that is demanding the bulk of that debater's time, for example.

If uninvolved parties say either publicly or privately that you've won and/or that you've proven your points - especially if the uninvolved party shares the platform of the opposing party (for instance, if an atheist agrees that a theist has won an argument against a fellow atheist), you've probably won.

Finally...If you feel you've won a debate, do not announce it to all and sundry. Do not grandly proclaim your victory. If you have legitimately won, the debate's readers will be able to judge that for themselves. Declaring it only shows everyone that you are self-promoting and/or have serious self-esteem issues. A simple "you have failed to support your argument" is quite sufficient. Anything else is just self-aggrandizing, not to mention just plain rude.

Debating 101 - Bible Translations

Since this is a subject I've needed to explain more times than I care to think about...

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic. Most people can't read these ancient languages so most rely on english translations of the Bible such as the King James Version (KJV) or the New International Version (NIV). These translations differ from one another, some significantly, and these differences are often emphasized in debates to prove an argument. Unfortunately, doing so is rarely valid. Why? The person presenting the argument is rarely aware of differences in underlying texts, differences in translation methodology and the significance of both. Those are the biggest pitfalls people most fall into, in my experience. Closely followed by complete ignorance of how to evaluate specific translations.

Underlying Texts

Basically, there are 3 Greek textual families that a translating committee may refer to when a new Bible is commissioned. These are the Textus Receptus (which the KJV is based upon), the Alexandrian Text and the Byzantine (Majority) Text. The Alexandrian comprises the earliest documentary witnesses. The Byzantine comprises the most documentary witnesses. The Textus Receptus...Well, do a generic google search on it and you'll very rapidly grasp issues with the TR, but it's primary benefit is, IMO, tradition.

For a valid comparison, the Bibles should belong to the same textual family. Comparing the KJV with the NIV, for instance, would be a fallacious comparison since they are based on different underlying texts (for a start).

Which underlying text is best?

My opinion only, but I think the Alexandrian text is best because that text type is closest in time to the autographs. But really, the differences between the Majority and Alexandrian texts are very minor, nor are these differences doctrinally significant. Granted, the Textus Receptus has more than a few differences that aren't so minor. Entire passages are found in the Textus Receptus that are not found in either the Alexandrian or Majority Texts. But again, they aren't doctrinally significant. One should be aware of these differences so one doesn't inadvertently cite 1 John 5:7-8 as a proof for the Trinity, for instance (unless one is prepared to argue the intergrity of that text). But the doctrine of the Trinity isn't taught in 1 John 5:7-8 alone. So again, although I think the differences are interesting from the perspective of textual criticism, they are insignificant when it comes to doctrine.

Translation Method

In a nutshell, there are three methods of translating the Greek. The first is formal equivalence, or a word-for-word translation (my personal preference). Examples include the KJV, the NASB, and the YLT. Formal equivalents should be used for ANY argument based on word studies from the Greek!!! Dynamic equivalents, rather than translating the exact word, instead seeks to translate the thought of the original writer (which is helfpul when it comes to figures of speech, etc that the modern reader may be completely unaware of). Examples include the NIV, CEV, and the NEB. Readers should be on guard against possible bias where the translators defer to the thought rather than the literal wording because the passage's thought can be subjective. Finally, we have paraphrased Bibles. Rather than following the word or the thought, these Bibles rephrase the text (the Greek or another translation) in simple, more contemporary language and as such, readers should be extremely on guard against translator bias. Examples include The Message and the Living Bible.

Which translation method is best?

Personally, I think they all are in that they can all be useful in teaching doctrine to different believers in wildly different circumstances. We don't all fit the same cookie cutter mold so why should our Bibles? If you're not familiar with idioms and/or aren't conjoined at the hip with word studies from the original languages, there's nothing wrong with using a dynamic equivalent. I turn to my NIV for devotional purposes. For word studies, yes, you need a formal equivalent. Formal equivalents purport to adhere the closest to the words of the Greek text so would produce the most valid results for comparisons. Paraphrases are a good starting off point for the unchurch, those who are only starting to learn English or can't read well.

As long as you're aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen Bible's methodology, I see nothing inherently wrong with any of them.

Evaluating Bible Translations

There are several important criteria for assessing specific Bibles. In no particular order:

Was the Bible translated by one person or translated by a committee? A committee tends to check one another against translational bias. Not that entire committees cannot exhibit bias, of course, but idiosyncrasities unique to individual translators will have less likelihood of slipping into the text if more than one person is working on the translation. Basically, the more translators on the comittee, the better.

What are the credentials of the translator(s)? If the translators have not formally studied the original languages or cannot prove their expertise (if independently studied), only an idiot would trust them to translate their Bibles. Unless, of course, they are simply paraphrasing an already extant english version. And I'd still be very wary.

Who commissioned the translation and for what purpose (if any)? Generally speaking, if a specific denomination commissioned the translation, check for a broad spectrum of denominations amongst the translation committee members to ensure denominational bias didn't encroach.

How old is the translation and have updated editions been released? With the discovery and study of ancient documents, our understanding of the ancient languages has increased, which says nothing of textual critical issues that may not be reflected in much older Bibles.

How has the translation been received among Bible scholars? If scholars nigh uniformly criticize a particular translation, that's not good, LOL. You don't need glowing reviews from every NT or OT scholar around, but if you notice a significant degree of objection, be wary.

What are valid comparisons?

To make valid comparisons among translations, stay within one translation methodology.

If possible, stay within one underlying textual family. If it's not possible to stay within a single textual family, be aware that criticisms based on differences in the underlying texts are not valid.

Counter-arguments based on the criteria for evaluating translations are valid as long as these criteria differ between the translations offered for comparison (for instance, Bible A was translated by one person whereas Bible B was translated by a committee of 20) and these differences are significant in either number or degree (for instance Bible A was translated by one respected scholar whereas Bible B was translated by 20 unknown/unproven scholars).

Finally, I cannot stress this enough: FORMAL EQUIVALENTS SHOULD ALWAYS AND *ONLY* BE USED IN WORD STUDY COMPARISONS!!! Dynamic equivalents and paraphrases do not claim to be word for word translations, which invalidates them as credible sources for word studies!

Debating 101 - Getting Started

The next series of posts will involve debate. Techniques. Tips & advice. How to support an argument. Common mistakes and pitfalls to avoid. My more Machiavellian debating ploys.

But we have to learn to walk before we can sprint so I'll start with how to format a proper argument. Some of this may seem painfully obvious, but bear with me. It may be obvious to you. It may be obvious to me, but trust me, I wouldn't mention it unless it became an issue in an argument more than once.

If your opinions are important enough to argue, they are important enough to present them coherently. In print or on the net, that means proper formatting. At the very basic, that means learning how to quote, indent and link, but learning how to bold, italicize, underline and change the size or color of your text is useful as well. If the forum you're posting on is using vBulletin, you can use the following tags:

[indent]your material[/indent]
[quote]material you're responding to[/quote]
[url=http://www.yourlink.com]www.yourlink.com[/url]
[b]bold emphasis[/b]
[i]italics emphasis[/i]
[u]underline emphasis[/u]
[color=blue]color emphasis[/color]
[size=2]change text size[/size]
[font=arial]your text[/font]
[center]center your text[/center]
[left]left justify your text[/left]
[right]right justify your text[/right]

A bit more advanced, but to insert images or smileys:

[img]http://www.specific_link_to_image.gif[/img]

These tags are fairly standard so if the forum you're posting on isn't vBulletin, try them, anyway. More likely than not, you'll need convert them to html tags - just replace the brackets [tag] with the greater & lesser than symbols: <>. If that doesn't work, learn how to format in whatever environment you are arguing in. Sorry to say so, but sadly, it's true - proper formatting makes your posts appear more professional and increases your credibility.

Use the bold, italics, underline, color and size tags (or a combination of them) to emphasize points in your arguments. ANY time you add emphasis to a quote add "(Emphasis mine)" to cue readers.

Use the quote tags when addressing specific comments of your opponent.

Any time you support an argument by quoting an authority and the quote runs longer than a single sentence, use the indent tag to set it off from your comments as a blockquote. Use on-line sources whenever possible and add a link for your readers. Doing so makes it easy for your readers to fact check you or read in context, thereby increasing your credibility. If you didn't find a source on-line, note the author, book and page number(s). If it's a commentary or dictionary, note the entry's name. For example: A.T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures, Luke 23:43. Or something to that effect. (More on proper references later.)

Proper formatting means your arguments are NOT one big old long paragraph. Failing to break your posts into paragraphs is inexcusably rude. A good rule of thumb is 3-5 sentences per paragraph.

Proper formatting also means you take the time to check your spelling, grammar and punctuation. Sure, everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but there's no excuse for arguments chock full of these sorts of errors. Sloppy spelling, grammar and punctuation places an unnecessary burden upon your readers to decipher you. It's RUDE. And pardon me for saying so, but arguments peppered with such rudimentary mistakes makes you look like an idiot. Your credibility is actually damaged by your inability to draft a coherent argument.

Italicize foreign words.

DO NOT TYPE IN ALL CAPS UNLESS YOU INTEND TO CONVEY TO THE READER THAT YOU ARE SHOUTING.

Learn the standard net acronyms if you haven't already: LOL, ROTFL, IMO, KWIM, etc. Don't invent new acronyms or overuse acronyms. Doing so makes you look less professional and can even make you look like a fool. If an opponent is using an acronym you don't know, google it. Don't ask unless you are seeking to draw attention to the acronym and/or your opponent for using an unusual acronym or you are deliberately doing so to appear open and more approachable. (More on deliberately exhibiting ignorance later.)

If you're citing Scripture, always indicate which Bible you are using. If the Bible is nonstandard, do not criticize others for challenging your choice. Be prepared to explain and defend that choice.

As for technique...Everyone has his or her own voice when it comes to writing and there's nothing wrong with that. But a few rules of thumb will increase your general readibility.

1. Vary simple and compound sentences.

2. Avoid word repetition unless varying a word will appear wooden or forced.

3. Don't use pretentious vocabulary. Using "big" words will make you appear intelligent, yes, and can increase the credibity of your position, but not if the average reader doesn't know the word. If the average reader doesn't recognize the word, you're just going to come off as a blowhard.

4. Choose a standard way to format for specific situations and stick with it. For instance, any time I quote Scripture, it appears as so: John 3:16 For God so loved the world...(NASB).

5. Use action verbs (jump, run). Avoid passive verbs (was, is, has).

6. Read your argument aloud before posting to identify awkward wording. Any time you have to interrupt a sentence to catch your breath, your sentence is too long. Break it up.

7. If the enviroment you're debating in has a preview function, use it. If you can edit your argument, re-read your post as soon as you've submitted it and revise, if necessary.

8. Strike the words "never" and "always" from your debating vocabulary.

9. Do not use words like "evidently" or "apparently" unless you have posted explicit evidence that makes your assertion apparent. Speculation is not evident or apparent to anyone.

10. Use humor liberally, but only if you are genuinely funny. If you have to explain a joke, you aren't funny.

Light at the end of the tunnel...

And glory be, that light isn't a train! Wahoo!

Everything's done except this wk's payroll and balancing the number's for this mth's finance report. And reviewing tonight's Awanas lesson. And planning & prepping tomorrow's Cub Scout Mtgs...But really, considering how bad this past wk has been, I almost feel like I'm on vacation. LOL

My schedule should start clearing Friday...

Drowning in work...

I am - in a word - overwhelmed. Mostly, it's treasurer's stuff, but some Scout stuff thrown in for good measure. Yesterday was the deadline for filing 4th Quarter 941s for 2007 as well as D Day for giving employees their W-2s. I also had to cobble together a page highlighting our Cub Scout Pack for the Cub Scout Show guidebook and email to that to printer yesterday. Add to that the regular end-of-mth checks & reports and I'm going down by the head and sinking fast.

I rolled out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to tackle this stuff uninterrupted and have roughly half of it finished. Taking the remainder of the day off. My head is imploding.

New focus for the site, at least temporarily

The WTS primary recruitment book when JWs first began meeting with me was KNOWLEDGE THAT LEADS TO EVERLASTING LIFE. I met with the JWs for nearly a year, reviewing the material in that book and the doctrines introduced therein.

Shortly before our meetings came to an end, the JWs gave me a new book, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE Really TEACH? This book was presented as a newer, more simplified approach and although I was given the choice as to whether or not continue in the KNOWLEDGE book, I was highly encouraged to switch over to the BIBLE TEACH book in our meetings. The JW I met with was discouraged that we'd been meeting for nearly a year (10 months) and had yet to proceed beyond Chapter 5 of the KNOWLEDGE book. Given the relative simplicity of the BIBLE TEACH book, the JW indicated that she felt we'd have better progress by switching over.

Well, in that, she was wrong.

Frankly, I was intellectually offended by the BIBLE TEACH book. To me, it was just a dumbed-down version of the KNOWLEDGE book. Simpler? Yes. It certainly is that. Because the book fails to offer explanations or reasons for many doctrines novel to the WTS to any great depth and some, the book fails to explain at all.

I cannot make it more plain: I can't stand this stupid book. Wallbanger, through and through.

I stopped meeting with the JWs shortly after leaving the KNOWLEDGE book and beginning the BIBLE TEACH book. Partially because the BIBLE TEACH book irritated me so much, I admit, but primarily for other reasons. The JW had begun praying that I would stop turning to a verse's context to understand the verse, for instance, but the straw that broke this camel's back was when the JW persisted in equating interpretation with Scripture. If any evidence contradicted what the WTS taught as its interpretation of Scripture, the JW insisted the evidence was at fault. Not the WTS. Never the WTS. Since we'd been meeting for nearly a year and I'd thoroughly covered orthodox christology (answering all objections presented by the WTS) as well as many other doctrines of the orthodox faith, I believed my work was done. My job, as a believer in Christ, is to present a defense and give the reasons for my hope. It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict and convince each person, not mine. So I quit.

The JW and I had gone through the first 2 chapters of the BIBLE TEACH book and we were due to begin CH3 when I quit. In those chapters, per my routine, I had highlighted sections I disagreed with and jotted rough notes and Scripture references on each.

I have decided to return to those notes, clarify and expand upon them, then post these notes to the site, though I may venture as far as Ch5. To provide a critical analysis to anyone approached by JWs with this book. Some of what's covered, I'll only need to provide a link to that material in the KNOWLEDGE sections of the site, but some of it's new.

I haven't abandoned my work in the KNOWLEDGE book. The subsections particularly will be quite useful for those in the BIBLE TEACH book. But for now, I will at least get the BIBLE TEACH book started.

Pneumonia

An FYI for those who've wondered where I am...

I had intended to go into my fiction as soon as I finished working on the books for church so I would've been MIA regardless, but I didn't move on to working on my fic, after all - I'm down with pneumonia. This is not an "I'm not allowed to be sick" situation because at this point, if I don't take care of myself, I'll end up in the hospital. Which would have catastrophic repurcussions on my schedule. ROTFL

Lots of rest, lots of fluids...I'll rejoin the world when I'm more fully on the mend.