Debate Format

[Kyuuketsuki]

What is it we do here? Is this just a friendly community where we hang out? I don't think so because if it weren't for being an atheist I wouldn't be here at all ... it seems to me that although we do group together and gripe about the world in general and how it is so anti-atheist we really don't get going until theists arrive. And let's be honest here ... we know they will arrive because we are the flame to their moths, we are incredibly attractive to them, we are the great unwashed, the unbelievers, the heretics and they desperately want to convince us they are right and, if possible, to save our souls. So what we do here is discuss and debate issues usually relevant to religion ... but the thing is, it really only gets interesting when someone tries to challenge us in our ivory towers.  

So when we're on our own (how sad) it tends to be discussion (with a bit of whinging) but with theists it heads more towards debate ... that's just my opinion. I tend to debate rather than discuss, in the main that's because I don't get involved unless it means something to me and that pretty much implies that it means a fair bit to me.

Anyway I took one of my old bits and modified it and I just wondered what you thought of the following:

Debate Etiquette
James Rocks

Overview
The following is a personal view of the way in which protagonist's debate and a set of guidelines intended to manage such debates and limit standard (and unfair) practices. I freely admit this is based on how I view debate and that I would only get involved in one when debating from a science/evidence based perspective but I see no reason why these should not translate with reasonable ease into a more normal format.

Introduction
Having a fair amount of experience at online debate it has become clear that some protagonists act in a manner that confers upon them unfair advantage (in terms of debating style) and this appears to be particularly true in the case of some theists (indeed virtually all fundamentalists). As such I have found it useful to derive a set of guidelines under which I would be willing to debate and so not be seen to be wasting my time (or indeed anyone else's). A debate within these rules should be reasonably fair and the protagonist's should agree in advance that they will either adhere to those rules or propose acceptable amendments. This will not usually be a problem for the science adherent but may present an issue for those arguing from a theistic POV.

These rules are intended for the benefit of all debate participants because, in my experience, some protagonists will demand evidence whilst not expecting to do the same in return. In most normal debating situations such rules would not be necessary but, when debating theists, there can be some unusual tactics the most popular of which is the idea that everything has a cause except for their god (a position that is inherently unfair and that few atheists will concede).

The following typical scenario between two protagonists, one a secularist (SEC), the other a theist (THE)

THE:    Asks one of a number of perceived "unanswerable" questions.
SEC:   Responds with a well an answer he/she perceives to be on-topic.
THE:   Ignores SEC's answer and follows up with 2nd "unanswerable" question.
SEC:   [Slightly Irritated] Answers Q2 or attempts to force THE deal with Q1 or admit defeat on the issue.

[These last two steps can get repeated until ...]

THE:   Quotes irrelevant evidences, scripture or other non-validatable source, claims that he/she DID answer the point, that the point being made is in some unexplained fashion "self-evidently" wrong or that there is some form of "self-evident" truth (usually one SEC will find out at some future point, usually death) or an answer that is unsubstantiated.
SEC:   Continues to follow up on unanswered points.
THE:   Leaves

In my experience it is rare that theists will admit themselves on any key point to be in error and typically, despite a lack of success in the debate at this point, will go on to raise the same points (as if unanswered) in other forums or debates.

The Rules
The following are a suggested set of rules and ones which the judges (if any) will be looking to see that both protagonists observe.

1. Protagonists must both agree to fully participate in the discussion and to follow through on points made by their adversary.

2. All points arising from those questions must be answered properly and, unless the view is stated as opinion, with reference to validatable evidence or an admission of a lack or of error.

3. It is unacceptable to "blow off" a multi-page, point-by-point refutation of a protagonist's answer with a few short lines unless those points actually destroy the points they are supposed to be answering.

4. Quotes will typically be considered unacceptable except as a support to specific point (they cannot be the entire answer).

5. URL's or copy & pasted articles written by others are unacceptable ... all protagonists must answer the posts in their own words.

I would go further than this inasmuch as I make it absolutely clear I do not object to doggedly pursuing someone on a given point ... I'll drop if that point is concede or if they raise a good argument against my position and I will also overlook a disputed point if it results in moving the discussion on as long as it is clearly understood by my opponent that I consider it to be a weakness in their position and will remind them of that if future points relies on that point.

Just curious about your thoughts if any concerning the way in which some theists debate.

Kyu

[Will]

I'm sure theists are scared away by the sheer response to their occasional claims here. I remember a few months back (hmmm, it may have been more like a year...) someone joined the community claiming to have been educated in science AND being a creationist. He tried his best to mount a reasonable case, but the responses, including my own, were extremely long and thorough. It was the kind of threat that makes a server cry. And some of it did start to turn into bashing.

I would imagine that many of our members, especially those from the US, are much more honest here taking advantage of the relative anonymity of the internet. So it ends up being a place to unload on people the way one might like to in the "real world".

I recall similar debate etiquette when I was back in school. It worked well so long as the debate was moderated fairly. As he mods here have demonstrated time and again their ability, I have no doubt the same rules would do well here.

[Asmodean]

As he mods here have demonstrated time and again their ability, I have no doubt the same rules would do well here.

Since I have an "I'm-an-evil-detail-nazi-guy-week" this week, I have to point out that there is only one mod here and one admin.

 

[Zarathustra]

we know they will arrive because we are the flame to their moths, we are incredibly attractive to them, we are the great unwashed, the unbelievers, the heretics and they desperately want to convince us they are right and, if possible, to save our souls.

I just love your phrasing!! Can I quote you elsewhere?

So what we do here is discuss and debate issues usually relevant to religion ... but the thing is, it really only gets interesting when someone tries to challenge us in our ivory towers.

I agree. It just gets so annoying when they don't adhere to conventional rules of debate. Like claiming unsubstantiated and improbable things as true facts. Then it's no longer a challenge, but a stupid debate leading nowhere. I think it is great that you spelled these out, but I wonder how we get them to accept these guidelines in practice. I think for example Titan did not want to.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I just love your phrasing!! Can I quote you elsewhere?

Quote me? Er, it's a first but yeah

I agree. It just gets so annoying when they don't adhere to conventional rules of debate. Like claiming unsubstantiated and improbable things as true facts. Then it's no longer a challenge, but a stupid debate leading nowhere. I think it is great that you spelled these out, but I wonder how we get them to accept these guidelines in practice. I think for example Titan did not want to.

They are in the business of avoiding facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same so, if they did, they know they'd lose, pure & simple. To some degree but I can think of one other who is worse (but there are those who disapprove of me "stirring it").

Kyu