What Is The Goal In A Debate?


I’ve been in several debates over the years. They’re sort of fun, and they help to bring the best out of the debators. Recently there have been a few debate challenges issued in the comments sections here and here.

I’m not opposed to debates. I’m having one in front of an audience with David Wood of Answering Infidels on the problem of evil this coming Fall. I know Dr. Craig and Dan Barker do them often too.


But sometimes it just seems to me that debate challenges are motivated by the desire to be the top dog, or something like it…that is, “who knows the most about the topic at hand?” Is it true that only the most informed person on an issue has the right to believe or not to believe? Surely that cannot be!

This Blog is a debate challenge. Every post of ours is an ongoing debate about some aspect of Christianity. We ask for relevant comments to sharpen our understandings, and this happens on a daily basis. We’re thankful for any intelligent, non-demeaning and relevant comment.

But my unbelief does not depend on winning a debate; just like my opponent's faith does not depend on winning a debate, either. So, what are the specific reasons for having a special one-on-one debate, and why do people issue these debate challenges so often?

I'll share some of my observations later.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, the irony of someone arguing that there is something dangerous about argument.... :-)

As for me, the reason I asked Loftus to debate is simple: I wanted him to actually address the issues I put forth. I was willing to concede that on this blog (since it's a very limiting format) I didn't answer everything he wanted answered either. A formal debate cures that by requiring both participants to engage in the topic at hand. (It becomes very obvious when someone tries to avoid the issue in a real debate.)

Thus, my desire for debate is not a matter of one-up-manship, but instead simply the easiest way to get all sides to focus on the topic at hand.

Error said...

so your debating here Albert has to do with your showcasing your skills?

You also said:

There is something ugly and dangerous about argument. We shouldn’t want other people to be our clones. The way to respect people is not to turn them into copies of ourselves, but to go our own way and let them go theirs."

Are you trying to make me a clone of your no-arguing position?

Resistence is futile!

Anonymous said...

Albert said:
Unfortunately most debates have more to do with showcasing debating skills than arriving at the truth.

Paul, you're an interesting character to me. You'll do a great deal of logical gerrymandering simply in order to win an argument. Unfortunately you don't see yourself doing this.

For your comment about Albert's quoted statement above to be relevant to what he actually said, he would be required to state something like, "ALL debates are NOTHING more than....showcasing one's debating skills." Sheesh. Calm down buddy.

As far as the rest of what he said, I'm not sure either one of us really understands what he means. He surely means something by his comments, but they are not articulated well at all. So rather than jump down his throat, why not ask him to clarify?

And I'll charitably take your final comment as an attempt at levity.

See, this isn't that hard to do.

Anonymous said...

Albert,For JWL, what I subsequently meant is that the outcome of a debate often reflects more on the debating abilities of the parties involved than the underlying truth/falsity of the proposition being debated.

This mirrors my own thoughts, for the most part. So let me ask again, why do people challenge others to debate one-on-one?

Error said...

Poor John, you see, I did get what he said. I wanted to see if he would *deny* that he was guilty of such. When he did so, then I'd ask him to deliniate for us which times it is okay to debate and which times it is not.

You will notice, oh Lofty one, that I asked questions. Only a fool would reason that my questions implied anything more than that.

I knew what i was doing.

I know my methidical sniper method isn't what you're used to, since you use the wild-crazy-eyed guns-a-blazin' method.

So, you're the interesting character, my friend. You're kinda like the Josh McDowell of atheologist apologetics, only not as intellectually sophisticated.

AnnieAngel said...

Why can't you just leave Christianity alone? What's the big deal, some people are Christian, some are not, this seems to really bothers you I have to ask WHY??

There will NEVER be a debate in which you will prove there is no God. And so what if you are "ex" Christians? It should mean you've MOVED ON. Not become attackists. You have turned your back on Jesus....so get on with your lives!! Get on with whatever your plan was when you started hating Christ! It must have been something unbelievable! It must have been earth shattering! It should lead you forward!! You should be GROWING!

Yet you are stagnating, arguing points that can't be proven for no reason, still clinging to Christianity...maybe you should think about what you are doing wasting your time trying to "debunk" Christianity. You're STILL caught up in the whole "religion" even though you claim to be mostly atheist and agnostic.

It's scary to read this!

Seek Jesus! Not Christianity!

exbeliever said...

annie,

Get people to stop justifying the oppression of homosexuals, the restricted freedom of women wishing to make their own reproductive decisions, the prohibitions against people making their own decisions about how they are to die with dignity, the appointing of justices that side with corporations over people, etc., ad infinitum and I'll "leave Christianity alone." Deal?

nsfl said...

Annie,

Perhaps if all of us were not ex-Christians, I could sympathize more with your comment.

Also, perhaps if I didn't visit one of your sites and see your leg icon, I wouldn't be so suspicious that your comment was entirely facetious.

Am I wrong, or right? I mean, being a missionary for Jesus by "fishing for men" with nice legs is pretty unoriginal, but still humorous. I guess I find it hard to take you seriously if you meant your comment that way.

Oh well...

DagoodS said...

AnnieAngel must be a parody. Although good for a laugh.

AnnieAngel said...

I'm not a parody, thanks. I am however pro-choice and I don't care if people want to be gay. Free will and all.

Again, I hope you realise it's man you are angry with, religion.

Not Jesus.

Sorry you are so sexually repressed that you find my legs to be un-Christian or whatever.

(glad you think they're nice)

Kevin said...

I think that the primary aim of debating is not to try and change the mind of the person you are debating against, but to try and reach out - through the debate - to those who might be 'listening' in, to the fence-sitters who have not made up their minds on the issue being debated.

Kevin