Debating 101 - On Being a Snot

I have been criticized recently, by 2 different people in 2 different debates on 2 different boards for being a snot (in so many words). That's what you call independent witnesses, LOL.

Are they right?

Sure, they are!

In debates, I employ sarcasm and satire under specific circumstances. Deliberately so. I believe, under specific circumstances, sarcasm and satire are appropriate responses - even for Christians. Perhaps, especially for Christians. Let's look at some of those circumstances, shall we?

1. If an opponent announces that I've ceded a point when I have not, depending. On these occasions, I quote the relevant portion of my post and point out my opponent's error. Everybody can make an honest mistake, though, so I'm not going lambast anyone for that alone. But if my opponent has crowed about my alleged admission, I take him or her to task for it - severely if the opponent has made a big to-do about my alleged admission or has made this mistake previously.

Why?

If a big splash was made of the error, I'll make a bigger splash to correct the error to ensure no one is doubtful that the correction was made. It's like newspaper corrections - usually buried deep, deep in the paper. Nobody sees them, unless by accident. Not mine. In a manner of speaking, I put my corrections on the front page, above the fold.

If my opponent has made this mistake previously...Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. So I'll also make a big splash of the correction as a preventative measure. If I tear into you for misreading me, I guarantee you'll think twice before doing it again. You'll be absolutely positive that I've genuinely ceded a point before announcing I've done so next time.

In those instances, my sarcasm and satire serves a necessary purpose: emphasizing the correction and a warning against repeating the mistake.

2. If an opponent consistently fails to support an argument they persist in asserting is true. Please note the word "consistently." Generally speaking, I ask opponents to support their arguments (from authority, from Scripture, whatever) at least twice before I turn to sarcasm. The more frequently an opponent fails to support his or her argument, the more sarcastic I become.

Why?

My opponent's persistent failure to support his or her position shows the weakness of his or her position. I emphasize the failure to showcase that weakness. An unsupported argument is just an opinion. Granted, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but personal opinions hardly provide a credible foundation in asserting a truth against a properly supported argument. I give personal opinions that disagree with my properly supported arguments every bit of the respect they deserve: none.

Satire and sarcasm serve a purpose: highlighting the weakness of my opponents position.

3. If an opponent equates his or her interpretation of Scriptures with the Scriptures themselves. In effect, any instance in which my opponent asserts or implies that if I don't agree with his or her position, I don't believe the Bible.

Why is sarcasm appropriate then?

To emphasize the distinction between my opponent's personal interpretation and the Word of God. Unless your name is Jesus, every interpretation of Scripture is open to error - including mine. Including my opponent's. Unlike my opponent in such instances, however, I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of Scripture may very well be wrong. Equating one's position with Scripture displays collosal hubris and reveals that the opponent does not recognize the fact that his or her interpretation may be in error. My opponent has, in fact, robbed the Bible of its inerrancy and applied that inerrancy to his/herself.

Sarcasam and satire serves a purpose - emphasizing the colossal hubris of my opponent and highlighting that personal interpretation is not equivalent to the Word of God.

4. If an opponent discounts my arguments without ever actually interacting with them. Reasons for failure to interact with my arguments tend to include (but certainly aren't limited to):

*we must look at the entirety of Scriptures, not just these verses
*my position isn't orthodox or my beliefs are atypical
*my position is biased because I am a: Trinitarian, Protestant, Christian, etc
*vague references to ambiguity when a word has more than one meaning
*one authority disagrees and therefore negates every other expert in the field
*since we don't know xyz exhaustively, we can't and shouldn't draw conclusions about xyz on existing evidence (a valid argument if existing evidence is inadequate, however)
*"I know what I believe is true and nothing you say will convince me otherwise" etc
*I'm quibbling over petty details (ironic when my opponent has demanded those details)
*I'm just borrowing from xyz (without proving the particular authority invalid)
*I'm too emotionally upset to discuss the issue rationally (???)

And if I point out the error of any of the above, then push the opponent to address an argument, you can add "I'm mean" to the list as well.

Why is satire and sarcasm appropriate?

To emphasize that my opponent has failed to refute my argument as well as stress the lengths to which some will go to in order to dodge even addressing those arguments - especially when ad hom attacks come into play.

Sarcasm and satire is an appopriate response, at times. Even for Christians. Christ himself used it (Matthew 23). I recommend "Offensisensitivity: Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?" at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html for an in-depth consideration of satire in the biblical and extrabiblical texts.

I have been a snot. Yep. But if you're looking for an apology, you won't find one here. Because, sometimes, the Faith benefits by showing all the snide mockery, disdain and contempt that a comment or argument deserves.