Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Best style for debating

Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:19:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Greetings everyone the doge emerges again.

This topic is for atheists, a discussion of the best debating style against theists. Should any theists wish to contribute by providing arguments for testing, kindly post the arguments. It would be highly appreciated.

Now, I've realized there is a lot of styles when refuting theist arguments, mainly of which include:
The lengthy scientific arguments that theists ignore
The funny sarcasm that doesn't seem to make much of an impact
The "then who created the creator" shift that ends up going nowhere
The metaphors that explain everything but theists say they're not relevant and so on.
So, which one is best, as in best to destroy their arguments completely?
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:21:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:19:03 AM, Jedd wrote:
Greetings everyone the doge emerges again.

This topic is for atheists, a discussion of the best debating style against theists. Should any theists wish to contribute by providing arguments for testing, kindly post the arguments. It would be highly appreciated.

Now, I've realized there is a lot of styles when refuting theist arguments, mainly of which include:
The lengthy scientific arguments that theists ignore
The funny sarcasm that doesn't seem to make much of an impact
The "then who created the creator" shift that ends up going nowhere
The metaphors that explain everything but theists say they're not relevant and so on.
So, which one is best, as in best to destroy their arguments completely?
Don't..............they don't understand honesty.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:36:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:19:03 AM, Jedd wrote:
Greetings everyone the doge emerges again.

This topic is for atheists, a discussion of the best debating style against theists. Should any theists wish to contribute by providing arguments for testing, kindly post the arguments. It would be highly appreciated.

Now, I've realized there is a lot of styles when refuting theist arguments, mainly of which include:
The lengthy scientific arguments that theists ignore
The funny sarcasm that doesn't seem to make much of an impact
The "then who created the creator" shift that ends up going nowhere
The metaphors that explain everything but theists say they're not relevant and so on.
So, which one is best, as in best to destroy their arguments completely?

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House

Of course, this is a generalization. The truth is if someone is willing to evaluate their position, then arguments utilizing science, logic, and/or metaphor could all be compelling.

The problem as I see it isn't really religion so much as dogmatism, and I'm not exactly sure how to beat that yet. After all, if someone claims certainty without evidence and/or logic then lack of evidence and/or logic isn't really going to be a problem for their continued belief.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:05:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:36:41 AM, Skepticalone
Hey SO hope you enjoyed your sabbatical lol.
Bloody addictive these little religion trolls, ain't they?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:09:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:19:03 AM, Jedd wrote:
Greetings everyone the doge emerges again.

This topic is for atheists, a discussion of the best debating style against theists. Should any theists wish to contribute by providing arguments for testing, kindly post the arguments. It would be highly appreciated.

Now, I've realized there is a lot of styles when refuting theist arguments, mainly of which include:
The lengthy scientific arguments that theists ignore
The funny sarcasm that doesn't seem to make much of an impact
The "then who created the creator" shift that ends up going nowhere
The metaphors that explain everything but theists say they're not relevant and so on.
So, which one is best, as in best to destroy their arguments completely?

Maybe in the last round of the debate swap the god you where debating about. If they did not word the rules right.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:09:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:05:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:36:41 AM, Skepticalone
Hey SO hope you enjoyed your sabbatical lol.
Bloody addictive these little religion trolls, ain't they?

Lol, time away was a good thing!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:09:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It depends on whether the debate is in a public forum or a personal conversation. Either way, the first thing to realize is that the chance that you will persuade whoever you are debating is nearly zero. Most good debaters know this. If it is a personal conversation, then the best you can hope for is to give the other person a better understanding of your reasons for not believing religious claims, and perhaps dispel some common myths that religious people have about atheists. If the debate is in a public forum, then do not gear your conversation toward the person, but toward the audience.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 11:02:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The best way to debate a Theists is to challenge his/beliefs and by attacking the source of his/her beliefs which is their scriptures. Appeals to logic, reason , science or evidence is meaningless to theists because their belies are not founded on anything remotely close to those academic persuasions.

Exposing their ignorance of scriptures is striking at their core. Ignorance of other subjects is less troublesome to theists. After all God only reveals to them what they need to know which is not a lot considering God is just a three letter word.

But theists are deeply entrenched in their beliefs and will generally respond to every question with the same response ie their faith, their strong belief in the absurd. There isn't much hope beyond that for an adult conversation. And if the theist happens to be a senior. He will try to bore you to death so you can keep him company in the journey to the beyond.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 4:32:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
My only concern when debating a theist is to expose the irrationality behind their position. I don't concern myself with whether they will buy it or not, I consider it more of an exercise then anything else. If the person I am having the discussion with bases their position on rational thought then they will respond. If they do not base their position on rational thought then nothing you can say will penetrate anyway. If my concern is to convince anyone, it's the people who may be watching, listening, or reading.

But with that said, the Socratic method is probably the best. If you are going to get a response out of them then they need to realize the silliness on their own, which can sometimes be done by getting them to explain their position in a way that is both accurate and contradictory. If that doesn't turn a light on nothing will.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 4:45:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:19:03 AM, Jedd wrote:
This topic is for atheists, a discussion of the best debating style against theists.
Jedd, the main issue in trying to have a rational debate with religious zealots is that ultimately, every claim to authority is predicated on an appeal to the validity and veracity of revelatory tradition. By that I don't mean that zealots will always ignore history or science; only that they'll claim a higher authority than independent evidence whenever they need to invoke whatever authorities independent evidence alone won't support (like the existence of gods; the validity of scripture, metaphysics and so on.)

To sustain that claim to authority, they need three things:
1) An appeal to ignorance;
2) An appeal to tradition; and to
3) Invalidate any other form of verification whenever it intrudes, especially but not limited to: empiricism, rationality and science.

In argument 1) and 2) tend to shift the burden of evidence; while 3) tends to use rhetoric -- that is, language, intuition and emotion -- to confuse and distract. Thus religious debaters have a notorious history of being evasive, deceitful, shifting ground, and claiming authority from nothing more than conjecture.

In my observation, the first victims of this campaign of deceit are the religious themselves. For the most part, they sincerely believe what they're saying, despite applying these appeals in the most outrageously selective and self-serving ways at times.

This is why I don't believe it's productive to debate religious zealots about religion. At best it's futile; at worst it's cruel. I generally confine myself to asking questions, offering evidenced proposals for reflection, and occasionally critiquing methods when they get too egregious.

But if you must do so, I believe it will help to consider:
* just what is wrong morally, ethically and intellectually with accepting tradition unscrutinised;
* why it's not only intellectually invalid to appeal to ignorance, it's also unethical to do so; and finally
* what knowledge means, why it's different from truth, to whom we should be accountable for what we claim to know, why we should be accountable, what form that accountability should take, and why one doesn't have to know everything to be confident in the knowledge one has assembled.

It helps to bear in mind that the religious are extremely myopic about their own traditions. They talk about God when in fact their subject is their traditions regarding a god. They talk about the Bible as an intact, coherent work, when it's actually the product of centuries of unattributable, unauthenticated authorship and unattributable undocumented redactions about which the religious themselves can say little. So there's a deep tectonic hypocrisy in the religious appeal to ignorance and tradition, namely that:

1) You don't know the inception of the universe, therefore I'll tell you; and moreover
2) I cannot authenticate who wrote scriptures, when, how or why, or how when or why they were redacted, therefore I'll tell you.

It's like trying to deal with faeries: what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too. But that's magical thinking for you. :D

Anyway, I have no advice on style, but that's my advice on substance.

I hope it may help.