With several new people joining recently and the GM reins being handed permanently to katisara and me, I felt I should do something that I've put off for a long time.  I put this as a "notice," but only because I don't mean it to be argumentative, but instead instructive and helpful.

Because religion is very personal and emotional to individuals, I thought it a good idea to give a short primer on rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the "art of persuasion."  When it comes to religion, persuasion is often a goal, but not always.

On this site, we use both rhetoric and sharing.  Do not feel slighted or take things personally if your closely held beliefs are challenged.  Whether you can prove them is probably being challenged.

The first things to decide in rhetoric are (1) what are your goals, and (2) who is your audience (i.e. whom do you wish to persuade).  Here, the goal will be based on the belief/fact you wish to present/prove.  The audience will not necessarily be the person who is arguing against you, but instead those who are reading your post and comparing it with the other post.  In other words, you debate probably not to convince the adversary arguing against you, but instead to persuade those who have taken no position yet.

Three avenues of rhetoric:

ETHOS:  This is the character/believability of a person.  Gravitas, if you will.

So to say, "You're an idiot," provides a direct and unacceptable attack on a person's ethos.

To say, "I believe X over Y because X is a scientist and this is a scientific issue," is another way to use ethos in rhetoric.

Many facts, including historic facts, may be predicated on the ethos of the source.  We often get into this topic.

LOGOS:  This is logic.  Some people may have good logic but it is based on a faulty premise.  Some people use fallacies which distorts the logic or makes it so the conclusion is not absolutely necessary given the facts.

This is also commonly used here.  Showing the Bible says A and the Bible says B; therefore, C is the type of logos you might see here.

PATHOS:  This is an appeal to emotion (a pathetic argumentO, and has also been used often here.

To say, "Why would God kill X number of people, including children, in a Flood?" would be a type of pathetic argument.

____________________________________
This said, I hope to provide you with a view into argument for argument's sake.  I have seen too many people leave this site because they felt offended or challenged.  Some people are more gifted or experienced in rhetoric and can walk circles around you, or you may do the same to them, but ultimately it is a persuasion tool and should not be taken personally or as the final truth if someone disagrees with you and presents some facts that seem to show them right and you wrong.

If that happens, try to find facts for your case, disprove or discredit their "proof," or, if all else fails, appeal to the final authority:  God.  Appealing to higher authority is often a logical fallacy, but rhetorically, you have that right.  :)

I also bring up this topic to hit on what are rhetorical dealbreakers.  These will bring argument to a dead end.  If you don't have a give-and-take for an argument, then there is no point and you lose "ethos."  Here they are, and please try to avoid them where possible:

(1)  Inflexible insistence--refusing to address or hear the other side (obviously time constraints, other side going off topic or the other side using one of these out of bounds tactics (like trolling) would not be inflexible insistence).  You will see this where someone says, "Because the Bible says so."  That's fine as an expression of belief but is only rhetorically effective where the target audience believes in the absolute ethos of the Bible.  There is no argument from there except to switch the topic to the ethos of the Bible.  Then the goal of the other side has been switched from proving a point to disproving (at least in part) the Bible.

(2)  Humiliation--an argument that sets out only to debase someone, not to make a choice.

(3)  Innuendo--this is an insidious type of humiliation using perhaps sarcasm.

(4)  Threats, nasty language, etc.--these do not solve problems or create choices; they create problems and alienate.

(5)  Stupidity--(yes, this is a forbidden rhetorical device)  Want to see it played out by masters?  (I thought you would:)

A: Look, this isn't an argument
B: Yes, it is.
A: No, it isn't.  It's just contradiction.
B: No it isn't.
A: It is!
B: It is not.
A: Look, you just contradicted me!
B: I did not.
A: Oh, you did!
B:  No, no, no.
A: You did just then.
B: Nonsense!
A: Oh, this is futile!
B: No it isn't...

(From Monty Python)
Calling other people's ideas "nonsense" or use of namecalling isn't rhetoric, it falls under the "stupidity" category.

(6) Trolling/flaming--(derogatory or inflammatory contents about sensitive topics)this is not a site to make fun of or attack people or their beliefs.  If you have a good argument, make it.  If your "goal" is to inflame someone else or satisfy your own ego, please change your "goal" to helping persuade people on the site or something more useful.

If you troll, I guess you give someone a right to "inflexible insistence" despite rule no. 1.

I hope this is helpful.  Please don't pull a Nixon on us ("You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.") and leave just because someone violates the rules above.  Instead, bring it to a GM's attention if you think it should be addressed and you cannot work it out with the offender.

I may add to this, and may do so upon request.  I just don't want anyone feeling that their personal beliefs are attacked when approached in a debate-like forum.

IF YOU WISH TO SHARE YOUR BELIEFS ONLY AND NOT ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEM (OR RHETORICAL ARGUMENTS), THEN YOU MAY WANT TO POST THAT UP FRONT.  Or, if questioned, just say that you were sharing only.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:32, Mon 14 May 2007.

Just to clarify, this is NOT a debating forum per se and the above is only for your edification, not a requirement for posting here.

However, since debates are frequently a product of the discussion, the rules above are to hopefully help those who engage in a debate to understand the tools being used against them, to provide them with an understanding of tools they can use to be persuasive, and also to avoid the "fouls" of rhetoric (in red).

(I also posted them because I may start becoming more "technical" in the debates I join, and this will at least let you know where I'm coming from when I do that.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:12, Wed 16 May 2007.

Here are some more resources on rhetoric.  I tend to use rhetorical arguments under this classical system.  By using them, our "discussions" should hopefully avoid denigrating into unproductive disputes and instead into productive arguments:

ETHOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos

An example of Ethos:
phronesis - practical skills & wisdom
(Here is where you would explain how knowledgeable you are and give your credentials to improve your credibility for the readers)

arete - virtue, goodness
(Here you would show how you are credible -- such as have not spoken untruths -- or you would demonstrate how your opponent in the debate has misrepresented, misstated, exaggerated, or otherwise hurt their own credibility.)

eunoia - goodwill towards the audience.
(Here, although you may attack the opponent, you will show how it is for the betterment and enlightenment of the others reading, and how you are looking out for their own best interests.)

PATHOS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathos
(Here, you are looking to evoke passion for your cause without going to the excess of destroying your own Ethos.  There are many types and ways of doing this.  Creating empathy is common.)

LOGOS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Use_in_rhetoric
This is logic.  It is a branch and a study all to itself.  Obvious logic is important to construct  rational argument, and the facts must be causally related.  Destroying an argument based on flaws and fallacies can be helpful to your opponent, but using fallacies in rhetoric (as opposed to pure logic) is not discouraged, since even fallacious logic can bolster an argument.

Example:
All post its I have seen are yellow.  Therefore, all post its are yellow.
This is untrue and a fallacy.  However, it would bolster the point that yellow is probably the most common color for post its.

Anyway, I hope this helps.  If you read back over the political discussion between myself and Vexen and Falkus, you will see how I used these (particularly ethos in this case) to try to bolster my argument.  My apology to Vexen, for example, is a pathos since the audience will empathize with me for being compassionate (which is not to say the apology was not heart felt -- it was -- but just to show the rhetorical value of such gestures).
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:58, Mon 14 Apr 2008.

I read this as part of a serious yet semi-comedic article telling lawyers how to argue in a way that convinces, and I thought it would be good to post here given many of the posts I've seen which are more empty attacks than civil arguments:

"Tone is telling Tone is important, at least if you're writing to persuade (if you're writing, say, a testamentary trust, it's probably not critical).  Animosity and ad hominem attacks are self-defeating.  Judges know that lack of substance often lies behind sarcasm and, er, demeaningness.  Demeanosity.  Whatever."

"A judge who is amused by some point will likely remember it more than if the same point had been expressed in some way that did not stand out [such as demeaning your adversary].  One giggle is worth a thousand underlinings, boldface types, and exclamation points."

"If you start a brief with guns blazing like this [i.e., an "argumentative" yet "inept" opening], the judge will suspect you're shooting blanks.  Best to show the ammunition first:  Lay out, quickly and accurately, the reasons you should win, then find a way of putting your point across memorably."

I'm not pointing fingers. This is not addressed at particular people. However, I've seen this come up before, and I expect it'll come up again, so let me lay down the topic.

None of us are experts in what we are debating (at least 90% of the time). We are all coming from a position of ignorance. That's not desirable, but it's acceptable. HOWEVER, I think some ground rules need to be established...


Everyone has a right to hold whatever opinion they want, for whatever reason. Your position may be unprovable, or even wholly ungrounded, but that's okay.

You do not need any background in order to try to explain to others what you believe. However, background knowledge will make it easier for everyone else to understand (since you can explain things better). Explaining things is different from expecting people to agree with you.

Everyone has the right to say "I am sharing my beliefs, and do not want to debate it". That's fine, this is a forum for debate, discussion and sharing. This is a rule that I will make sure is always enforced.

You don't need any real support or background in order to ask honest questions (i.e. questions where you are looking for information, as opposed to questions where you're trying to lead the other person somewhere). But honest questions are also open to honest answers, even if they disagree with what you've learned before.


On the flip side...

"Look it up" is an honest answer. Some information is so trivially easy to find, it takes less time to type it into a search engine than it does to type it out from scratch. It's easy to get confused on which questions deserve further discussion, and sometimes the person asking the question needs to really stress this to communicate that it's a point of discussion. A great example is "what is a spiritual transformation" - one can look it up easily, but it may not address the deeper question, especially in the context of the discussion.

If you are trying to convince other people of a position or debate, the strength of your argument depends very heavily on how much you've studied it. This feeds back to what Heath posted. Ethos is the believability and credibility of a person. I don't expect anyone to believe me if I'm talking about the art of Eskimos, because I've never studied it and I know nothing about it. I have no Ethos. Research also contributes to Logos - your logical argument. Research gives you more evidence and more logical tools to argue your case. Expect the person who has done the most research to win the debate, even if he's wrong, because he has more tools available to leverage his argument.

While there is no rule against arguing a position you know little about, this does not mean it's a good idea. If you honestly know nothing about a topic, it will show, and you will lose credibility. Admitting you don't know enough may cost a little credibility, but it earns you respect and, more importantly, gives you a chance to listen and maybe pick up a little knowledge or wisdom too.

If you have not done your research, don't be surprised to be called out on it! We have discussed it at length and decided calling out ignorance is rough, definitely not the way to win friends, but not necessarily a personal attack. I do not like people to calling out ignorance, but it's not something I'm going to hammer you for, unless it goes overboard or really does become a personal attack. Just because the person you're talking with knows less than you do doesn't justify your being rude about it.


Again, this is not said with particulars in mind (well, except the bit where I quoted :P ) I tried to cast a very wide net. But it is a point which will come up again and again. Ignorance is the unfortunate truth we all live under, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate it within ourselves.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:40, Tue 26 Jan 2010.

To add to what katisara said, there are 2 things to keep in mind:

1) DEBATE: If you are debating, there are 3 PEOPLE involved:  You, the person you are debating against, and the audience you are trying to convince.  Typically, you do not convert the person you are debating against to your belief, but that is not the target.

2) DISCUSSION: If you are having a discussion, there are 2 PEOPLE involved:  you and the person/people you are having a discussion with.  They may ask you questions, and it may involve multiple sides, but ultimately you are  not persuading or debating.

3) SHARING:  If you are sharing, there are 2 PEOPLE involved: you and those you share with.  It is not a two way conversation, so the other person/people don't get a voice; they just listen and maybe probe you to share more.

This forum too often involves only a DEBATE (or devolved into that), even when the person presenting often just wants a discussion or sharing.  This usually happens because someone has an OPINION that differs from the person sharing and believes the person sharing is wrong.

There are two potential problems with this: (1) The person sharing may not want to debate, but to interact with your ideas; and (2) Rushing to judgments and conclusions without fully researching the facts is a common occurrence when this happens.  Sometimes, the person sharing has done far more research before sharing, and sometimes they are just giving an opinion not subject to debate.

I wanted to add one area that concerns me in the debates I've seen, and that is use of a straw man fallacy.  Unlike many fallacies which simply are faulty logic, the straw man fallacy can actually prove quite harmful to the target (particularly when accompanied by the fallacy of ad hominem attack).

A straw man fallacy is where one person misstates the other's argument by doing such things as (1) misstating the fundamental belief, (2) adding details that are not part of the belief, or (3) not including important facts that would modify the basic assumption.

Then the first person tries to disprove the other's belief, when in fact all the first person has done is disprove his own mistaken belief about what the other believes.

I think this is a source of many misunderstandings in religion today, and is often used by those who wish to disprove or make the other religion look bad.  Often it is done innocently, but usually it is done by someone wishing to disprove something they have not fully learned about yet.

I think it is far better to pose your questions by asserting your assumptions/premises first and making sure you understand those correctly before you try to disprove them.

Or better yet, we could learn about each other's religions without attacking them.  (I know, that's a stretch...)

I realize this is a debate forum, but these constant straw man arguments, in politics, religion, the Prop 8 and homosexual marriage issues, and other areas, are a key component of what turn me away from here, and which have turned others away in the past.

Having to repeat your premise or correct misstatements takes away a lot of the fun.

This message was last edited by the GM at 01:22, Wed 04 May 2011.