Post by Stephen on Feb 27, 2010 14:56:25 GMT -5
The thread instigated by Michael's comments a week or so ago addresses some very legitimate issues that interest each of us adn are quite fascinating to study.
However, that thread has become a bit fractured and accusing. In that regard, it no longer addresses the issues that interest each of us or seeks truth.
So let's study a bit about fair, intelligent debate and seeking truth. These rules are not my rules. They are broadly used by debate teams and professional speakers everywhere and are generally accepted in most lecture or university forums. I hope they are acceptable here as well.
These are commonly known as rules for "Cross Examination" or "Academic" styles of debate:
1) Most direct questions have 3 possible answers: "Yes," "no," or "I disagree with the premise of the question."
For instance, if someone asked you "Do you beat your wife with a whip or a chain?" you might respond by saying "I disagree with the premise of the question. I do not beat my wife." The debate administrator would then warn the issuer of the question to abstain from presumptive questions and offer him one opportunity to restate the question in a fair manner.
Unless you disagree with the premise of the question, it should be answered "yes" or "no" with little or no elaboration. Continued elaboration robs your counterpart of the opportunity the pursue the purpose of the question.
2) Presumptive questions are not permitted. A presumptive question is any question that implies a premise not accepted by all parties. See details above.
An example of a presumptive question:
"Do you support the evil men who robbed the bank last week?"
This question implies that the men who robbed the bank are inherently evil, and that they robbed a bank. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. The question is better stated:
"Do you support the men who allegedly robbed the bank last week?"
This permits the counterpart to answer the question using one of the three acceptable answers (see #1), after which the point may be pursued by the questioner.
3) Ad hominal statements or questions are not permitted. These are statements or questions that attack, overtly or implicitly, the person answering the question, or assign a position to another person to which they may object. Here are some examples:
- "Because you hold this position, you must hate America."
- "Your belief system clearly shows that you love Adolf Hitler."
- "Why do you defend the murders of Charles Manson?"
Such statements usually draw heavy points penalties and are among the worst debate tactics.
4) Don't disagree with obvious truths.
5) Attack the idea not the person.
6) Avoid exaggeration.
7) All parties accept that the use of often allows for exceptions. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
8) Do not present opinion as facts.
9) If you are unwilling to alter your position, do not debate. Consider lecturing instead.
If you are unwilling to alter your position, you are lecturing, not debating. There are forums for lectures. A debate is a comparison of ideas in the pursuit of truth. A lecture is the public delivery of a thesis.
10) Concede minor or trivial points in order to focus on the main questions of the debate.
11) Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
If you agree to the generally accepted rules of Cross Examination or Academic debate, please continue to the next post. Also, for those who might question the rules or suggest other rules, please continue as well.
If you reject standard debate rules, please do not post on this thread. If no one posts here and this thread dies instantly, that is perfectly acceptable and a message in itself.
However, that thread has become a bit fractured and accusing. In that regard, it no longer addresses the issues that interest each of us or seeks truth.
So let's study a bit about fair, intelligent debate and seeking truth. These rules are not my rules. They are broadly used by debate teams and professional speakers everywhere and are generally accepted in most lecture or university forums. I hope they are acceptable here as well.
These are commonly known as rules for "Cross Examination" or "Academic" styles of debate:
1) Most direct questions have 3 possible answers: "Yes," "no," or "I disagree with the premise of the question."
For instance, if someone asked you "Do you beat your wife with a whip or a chain?" you might respond by saying "I disagree with the premise of the question. I do not beat my wife." The debate administrator would then warn the issuer of the question to abstain from presumptive questions and offer him one opportunity to restate the question in a fair manner.
Unless you disagree with the premise of the question, it should be answered "yes" or "no" with little or no elaboration. Continued elaboration robs your counterpart of the opportunity the pursue the purpose of the question.
2) Presumptive questions are not permitted. A presumptive question is any question that implies a premise not accepted by all parties. See details above.
An example of a presumptive question:
"Do you support the evil men who robbed the bank last week?"
This question implies that the men who robbed the bank are inherently evil, and that they robbed a bank. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. The question is better stated:
"Do you support the men who allegedly robbed the bank last week?"
This permits the counterpart to answer the question using one of the three acceptable answers (see #1), after which the point may be pursued by the questioner.
3) Ad hominal statements or questions are not permitted. These are statements or questions that attack, overtly or implicitly, the person answering the question, or assign a position to another person to which they may object. Here are some examples:
- "Because you hold this position, you must hate America."
- "Your belief system clearly shows that you love Adolf Hitler."
- "Why do you defend the murders of Charles Manson?"
Such statements usually draw heavy points penalties and are among the worst debate tactics.
4) Don't disagree with obvious truths.
5) Attack the idea not the person.
6) Avoid exaggeration.
7) All parties accept that the use of often allows for exceptions. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
8) Do not present opinion as facts.
9) If you are unwilling to alter your position, do not debate. Consider lecturing instead.
If you are unwilling to alter your position, you are lecturing, not debating. There are forums for lectures. A debate is a comparison of ideas in the pursuit of truth. A lecture is the public delivery of a thesis.
10) Concede minor or trivial points in order to focus on the main questions of the debate.
11) Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
If you agree to the generally accepted rules of Cross Examination or Academic debate, please continue to the next post. Also, for those who might question the rules or suggest other rules, please continue as well.
If you reject standard debate rules, please do not post on this thread. If no one posts here and this thread dies instantly, that is perfectly acceptable and a message in itself.