Debating Guidelines -- McKinsey's Biblical Errancy Forum Group

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:05:34 02/24/02 Sun
Author: Rev Gadfly
Subject: Debating Guidelines

RevG

For those who wonder what guidelines should be followed in this ng when debating a particular point of view, these would be acceptable.

1) No logical fallacies:

*argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Can be illustrated by the argument that ghosts must exist because
nobody has ever been able to prove that ghosts do not exists.

*argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty). Can be illustrated by the misuse of expert opinion or authority-based sources to try to suppress someone's opinion in argument, by implying that they dare not oppose the word of an authority on an issue.

* argumentum ad hominem (personal attack). Can be illustrated by attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

*argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). Can be illustrated by using intimidation to gain acceptance of a conclusion; without giving proper or adequate argument for it.

*argumentum ad miserocordiam (appeal to pity). Can be illustrated by appealing to pity.

*argumentum ad populum (appeal to popular emotions). Can be illustrated by appealing to the audience for support; instead of providing a valid argument.

*ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). Can be illustrated when an argument is directed towards proving an irrelevant conclusion. Example, an authority prosecuting a defendant for murder argues that murder is a terrible crime, instead of proving that the defendant committed a murder.

+non-sequitur (does not follow). Can be demonstrated when an conclusion does not logically follow the premises.

+Petitio principii (begging the question) Can be illustrated by the claim that the Bible is the Word of God; but not demonstrating it. Sometimes we see this when someone claims something is a fact when in fact it is anything but factual.

Other fallacies:

*Arguing in a Circle. Can be illustrated when a conclusion to be proved is presupposed by his premises. It is like arguing that the Bible is true, because God would not lie; and God would not lie, because the Bible says he doesn't.

*Loaded Alternative. Can be illustrated when a position is worded such that only specific alternatives exist.

*No True Scotsman Fallacy. Can be illustrated by attempting to dismiss someone basically in the same philosophical/religious camp; for example, a Protestant trying to dismiss a Catholic viewpoint on the grounds that Catholics are not TRUE CHRISTIANS.

*Reification: The process of regarding an abstract concept (e.g., love), as having a material or concrete existence.

*Replying to a questions with a question. Can be illustrated by someone replying with a question, because answering the
question would destroy his argument.

*Strawman. Can be illustrated by misrepresenting an opponent's position in order to defeat it. It also arises when one invents a position and claims that the opponent invented it.

*The Slippery Slope. Can be illustrated when a proposal is criticized, without sufficient evidence, on the grounds that it will lead, by an inevitable sequence of closely linked consequences, to an end result that is catastrophic.

*Etc.

2) Sticking to the subject at hand.

3) No mindreading apologetics; for example, claiming that the author of this or that verse 'really meant'.

4) No preaching about how anyone needs Jesus, or Allah, etc.

peace

Rev Gadfly

2)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: Debating Guidelines -- Paul Angle, 05:35:27 02/25/02 Mon

Wonderfully done Rev., great Latin. The 'No True Scotsman' got me laughing. Excellent rules, of course we must bend a few elsewise we give no quarter for the opinions of the religious who stand soley on some of these arguments. This can serve as a reference list of why these arguments do not constitute proof.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Debating Guidelines -- Rev Gadfly, 11:53:31 03/01/02 Fri

RevG

I do not mind bending the rules a bit, but there is a limit to how much question begging one can tolerate.

peace

Rev Gadfly

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]