Some Tips

[Rival]

I've recently participated in debate threads which took a serious turn for the worst. Arrogant as it may sound, I would like to offer some tips to RFians (and welcome other suggestions also).

1. Read the OP. Read it all. Then read it again.

2. You're frustrated? Write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say (don't post it) - then delete it, take a breather, and compose a more civil response without the caps and the exclamation marks.

3. Don't feel forced to respond. If something has been going in a circle, drop it. You've not 'lost' by not responding to the latest attack, it just didn't deserve a reply.

4. Consider that your opponent may actually be right, even just about some things. I know, I know, fat chance, right?

5. Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Have you listed your sources? Or worse: are you actually trying to convince yourself, rather than your opponent?

6. How many times have you used 'I' in your response? Your opponent isn't interested in you, s/he's interested in what and why, generally. Present the argument, the sources and the conclusion. A sound argument shouldn't really be dependent upon you, how you feel and your beliefs; this isn't really going to convince anyone. This is not to say that one should never use 'I', but just make sure it's relevent.

 

[Anthem]

I only believe in experience in a philosophical sense. So I will go on using the word I when I have nothing to replace it with.

 

[Rival]

I only believe in experience in a philosophical sense. So I will go on using the word I when I have nothing to replace it with.

Of course. However what I am saying with this point is that, in the context of a debate where the intent is to convince your opponent, your personal experience is not a convincing argument. So this shouldn't really be used anyway, unless asked for.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've recently participated in debate threads which took a serious turn for the worst. Arrogant as it may sound, I would like to offer some tips to RFians (and welcome other suggestions also).

1. Read the OP. Read it all. Then read it again.

2. You're frustrated? Write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say - then delete it, take a breather, and compose a more civil response without the caps and the exclamation marks.

3. Don't feel forced to respond. If something has been going in a circle, drop it. You've not 'lost' by not responding to the latest attack, it just didn't deserve a reply.

4. Consider that your opponent may actually be right, even just about some things. I know, I know, fat chance, right?

5. Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Have you listed your sources? Or worse: are you actually trying to convince yourself, rather than your opponent?

6. How many times have you used 'I' in your response? Your opponent isn't interested in you, s/he's interested in what and why, generally. Present the argument, the sources and the conclusion. A sound argument shouldn't really be dependent upon you, how you feel and your beliefs; this isn't really going to convince anyone.

What I do a lot, even though tedious, is instead of just reading the full post and trying to reply especially with memory issues that get me to go back to check what Im replying to, I separate the quotes in order to read each section individual. It lends for a more constructive reply than relying on memory.

Another thing is when you reread posts, take a break and reflect on it before coming back. Sometimes Im in the middle of a reply, stop, get something to eat, then come back to edit.

Another thing I noticed is posting sources as if they speak for themselves. Like an essay paper, once you post a source, summarize it or give a comment so we know the context of what you are talking about rather than the source authors. This includes scripture and scientific quotes.

I personally dont see problems with I-statements as long as its not done to overtalk the other person rather than express ones opinion or statement of fact that I-person considers true. You-statements are worse than I-ones.

 

[Curious George]

Of course. However what I am saying with this point is that, in the context of a debate where the intent is to convince your opponent, your personal experience is not a convincing argument. So this shouldn't really be used anyway, unless asked for.

While this seems like a tangent to your thread:
Personal experience is indeed data, evidence, and powerfully persuasive at times. Personal anecdotes are often used as rhetorical devices that serve to both ethos and pathos (both are parts of persuasive communication).

Furthermore, couching statements in I statements can help keep discussion from escalating at times. This is not meant to challenge or discredit number six on your list. Number 6 is a good tip. Relying too heavily on I statements leads to passive communication (and in some cases passive aggressive communication). Overuse can also work against pathos and ethos.

Noting that you did not say to exclude any and all I statements, I took your meaning to suggest that one ought to analyze their use of I statements for relevancy and necessity. Is that correct?

 

[Rival]

Noting that you did not say to exclude any and all I statements, I took your meaning to suggest that one ought to analyze their use of I statements for relevancy and necessity. Is that correct?

That is correct.

 

[Quintessence]

1. Read the OP. Read it all. Then read it again.

Addendum: If the OP contains some references, it might be a good idea to read some of them, especially if it's a central illustration of what the post is talking about. The OP should ideally provide a succinct summary of said references, but this will never be exhaustive and it may contain biases or selective quoting that misrepresents the sources they are using.

2. You're frustrated? Write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say - then delete it, take a breather, and compose a more civil response without the caps and the exclamation marks.

Addendum: Or just step away from the keyboard and don't post at all. Basically, be sure to avoid giving the staff team the impression that you are posting rule violating content and then quickly deleting it as a way to avoid moderation. It's not something we notice often, and we tend to be lenient on this as we'd rather you delete your bad stuff than us have to remind you of it, but this is something that could be abused. If you gotta write something out, open up TextEdit or some other word processor on your computer and do it there so you aren't tempted to post it up at all.

3. Don't feel forced to respond. If something has been going in a circle, drop it. You've not 'lost' by not responding to the latest attack, it just didn't deserve a reply.

Addendum: Not everyone has an argumentative personality, or is interested in turning discussions into competitions. Recognize that you may be one of those people, but that the person you are discussing with might have different standards. There's nothing wrong with disengaging with someone whose style of conversation grates you the wrong way. Doesn't mean they don't deserve engagement... it means you two are just not going to get along and it's probably best to shrug and move on.

4. Consider that your opponent may actually be right, even just about some things. I know, I know, fat chance, right?

Addendum: Consider also that the "need to be right" is not on everyone's agenda, and that for many topics of religion and philosophy, being right is neither the point nor something that can be determined or settled. Hold to your ways, but remember to check your assumptions at the door sometimes. Differences of opinion are a thing, and a little respectfulness and humility can go a long way.

5. Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Have you listed your sources? Or worse: are you actually trying to convince yourself, rather than your opponent?

Addendum: Some of us just aren't very good writers. We don't realize how our tone comes across to others, or that being precise and mindful with choice of words can be the difference between communication and miscommunication. Try to have the patience to work through such things. Remember that successfully communicating your ideas to someone is paramount and secondary to convincing someone you are right (which may not be part of your agenda at all).

6. How many times have you used 'I' in your response? Your opponent isn't interested in you, s/he's interested in what and why, generally. Present the argument, the sources and the conclusion. A sound argument shouldn't really be dependent upon you, how you feel and your beliefs; this isn't really going to convince anyone. This is not to say that one should never use 'I', but just make sure it's relevent.

Addendum: I actually have to disagree with this one, especially as it pertains to the main topic of these boards. Religion is an inherently personal matter, and speaking from one's personal point of view is both important and relevant. Those perspectives should be valued and honored. Overuse of "you" language - putting words in someone else's mouth or accusing them of something - is much more problematic in conversations than "I" language. Shifting "you" language to "I" language is a big part of being a good active listener.

 

[Augustus]

I would like to offer some tips to RFians (and welcome other suggestions also).

If you are tempted to refer to a generic logical fallacy, don't, as you will probably use it wrongly (especially if you are squealing ad hom). Even if you don't it is unlikely to add much to a discussion beyond making you think your argument and reasoning is better than it actually is.

Also keep in mind, you might consider it a logical fallacy because you have misunderstood the point, and won't be able to identify your error unless you articulate your interpretation.

If you absolutely have to refer to a fallacy, at least explain why something is a strawman, etc. Simply mindlessly parroting the phrase 'strawman' at a post, especially when it contains multiple points, is the intellectual equivalent of saying 'You're wrong because you smell of poo and live in a house made of poo and you like to eat poo, you smelly poo-poo.'

 

[Rival]

Addendum: I actually have to disagree with this one, especially as it pertains to the main topic of these boards. Religion is an inherently personal matter, and speaking from one's personal point of view is both important and relevant. Those perspectives should be valued and honored. Overuse of "you" language - putting words in someone else's mouth or accusing them of something - is much more problematic in conversations than "I" language. Shifting "you" language to "I" language is a big part of being a good active listener.

Again, with this I was more going for the type of thing, where, for example a person may be trying to convince an atheist to believe in Islam or something and he says, 'I had a dream about Muhammad' and then a Christian comes in and says, 'Well, I had a dream about Jesus and he told me his faith is true', then neither of these are really going to hold any realistic weight to the atheist. Of course, I speak in the context of a debate to convince.These are experiences, not arguments, and in my opinion belong more in a discussion rather than a debate where few people are realistically going to be convinced by them. I often see people asking for 'empirical', 'provable' and so on, and experiences can't really be tested as such.

Addendum: Some of us just aren't very good writers. We don't realize how our tone comes across to others, or that being precise and mindful with choice of words can be the difference between communication and miscommunication. Try to have the patience to work through such things. Remember that successfully communicating your ideas to someone is paramount and secondary to convincing someone you are right (which may not be part of your agenda at all).

Yes!

Edit: I think you misunderstood number 2. I did not mean post the diatribe - I meant write it, don't post it, delete it then compose a more civil response

 

[Augustus]

Addendum: If the OP contains some references, it might be a good idea to read some of them

Never! If a post contains some references, immediately fabricate a reason that you can dismiss them out of hand especially if they are the kind of scholarly sources that you would value very highly if they supported your opinion.

If questioned about this, pretend you have, in fact, read them and found some kind of methodological flaws within them and that your rejection of them is simply a product of your rational scepticism rather than that they go against your deeply held opinions.

 

[Rival]

I like how this thread is going!

 

[Earthling]

What I do a lot, even though tedious, is instead of just reading the full post and trying to reply especially with memory issues that get me to go back to check what Im replying to, I separate the quotes in order to read each section individual. It lends for a more constructive reply than relying on memory.

I do this as well, unless of course if I'm responding to a short post.

Another thing is when you reread posts, take a break and reflect on it before coming back. Sometimes Im in the middle of a reply, stop, get something to eat, then come back to edit.

Again, I do this. Sometimes leaving the post overnight and even abandoning it the next morning.

Another thing I noticed is posting sources as if they speak for themselves. Like an essay paper, once you post a source, summarize it or give a comment so we know the context of what you are talking about rather than the source authors. This includes scripture and scientific quotes.

I personally dont see problems with I-statements as long as its not done to overtalk the other person rather than express ones opinion or statement of fact that I-person considers true. You-statements are worse than I-ones.

At the risk of sounding lame, I'm not big with sources. Though I do understand and agree with the I rule in @Rival 's post, I'm an admirer of saying what I believe, without the personal I attached because I'm defending the position, not the source. Besides, I've learned from many sources and don't remember where they all came from. If I mess it up it would, in my mind, unnecessarily reflect poorly on the source.

Besides, it's a distraction. Most people only want sources because they want to attack those sources. A thing as true or untrue is independent from the source. Another reason people want sources is to put some false stamp of authority on it. Since it's either true and accurate as possible or it isn't. That doesn't change depending on the source. A final reason is plagiarism. People get pissed if you use the material of someone else. No matter where I learned the information I put it in my own words. Noting about this is original. I'm not discussing anything new.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe include

Thus I have heard...

Thus I have read....

Might help with the "I" dilemma.

 

[Audie]

I've recently participated in debate threads which took a serious turn for the worst. Arrogant as it may sound, I would like to offer some tips to RFians (and welcome other suggestions also).

1. Read the OP. Read it all. Then read it again.

2. You're frustrated? Write the response that, in your frustration, you want to say - then delete it, take a breather, and compose a more civil response without the caps and the exclamation marks.

3. Don't feel forced to respond. If something has been going in a circle, drop it. You've not 'lost' by not responding to the latest attack, it just didn't deserve a reply.

4. Consider that your opponent may actually be right, even just about some things. I know, I know, fat chance, right?

5. Read through your own response. Is any of it vague? Have you listed your sources? Or worse: are you actually trying to convince yourself, rather than your opponent?

6. How many times have you used 'I' in your response? Your opponent isn't interested in you, s/he's interested in what and why, generally. Present the argument, the sources and the conclusion. A sound argument shouldn't really be dependent upon you, how you feel and your beliefs; this isn't really going to convince anyone. This is not to say that one should never use 'I', but just make sure it's relevent.

May we suggest, in all royal 'we" humility, that
you observe your own advice, as in item one?
The part in bold from item five is also a good one.

And you could add an item seven.

7 Blame not thine audience.

 

[Audie]

If you are tempted to refer to a generic logical fallacy, don't, as you will probably use it wrongly (especially if you are squealing ad hom). Even if you don't it is unlikely to add much to a discussion beyond making you think your argument and reasoning is better than it actually is.

Also keep in mind, you might consider it a logical fallacy because you have misunderstood the point, and won't be able to identify your error unless you articulate your interpretation.

If you absolutely have to refer to a fallacy, at least explain why something is a strawman, etc. Simply mindlessly parroting the phrase 'strawman' at a post, especially when it contains multiple points, is the intellectual equivalent of saying 'You're wrong because you smell of poo and live in a house made of poo and you like to eat poo, you smelly poo-poo.'

A good point eight would be-

8. Do not claim "ad hom" unless you thoroughly
understand what it means, and, it actually applies.

That one could st and to be elevated to the status
of a law, like Godwin's.

"False declaration of ad him is an automatic loss"

 

[Rival]

May we suggest, in all royal 'we" humility, that
you observe your own advice, as in item one?
The part in bold from item five is also a good one.

And you could add an item seven.

7 Blame not thine audience.

I do read OPs and was recently dismayed to discover that some people only respond to titles. Also that others simply skim threads, and as I had problems in my other one with people saying I had generalised when I had clearly stated that I was not talking about an entire group does illustrate that an OP can be perfectly well written, but that people are too lazy to read it thoroughly and respond to what they thought the thread said instead of what it actually said - so one can absolutely blame the audience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Gosh. Ya'll getting defensive already. They're just tips.

Oh. Edit. Another tip. Reread the post and find the context. Most of the time it isn't about You. For example:

As many as 98% of the world loves apples. I noticed that the majority is in US state of VA. At least that's what I observed.

The other: But I don't like apples. So (it doesn't apply to me). I like oranges. (The: I am special view)

It goes with the I-comment where instead of the point being addressed it's turned to the person trying to make a new argument on what he doesn't believe rather than the debate topic presented.

Also, I see this on polls more often. If a person doesn't have "other" and the question doesn't apply to you, why comment unless it's productive in nature. That's another reason why people take offense. Mistaking debates for arguments.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Rival

Haha. Refresh. I just had to...nardles my nerves. Ha.

 

[Thief]

3. Don't feel forced to respond. If something has been going in a circle, drop it. You've not 'lost' by not responding to the latest attack, it just didn't deserve a reply.

I,,,,,,,,like this one item
I....often refrain so not to feed the troll

 

[Quintessence]

Again, with this I was more going for the type of thing, where, for example a person may be trying to convince an atheist to believe in Islam or something and he says, 'I had a dream about Muhammad' and then a Christian comes in and says, 'Well, I had a dream about Jesus and he told me his faith is true', then neither of these are really going to hold any realistic weight to the atheist. Of course, I speak in the context of a debate to convince.These are experiences, not arguments, and in my opinion belong more in a discussion rather than a debate where few people are realistically going to be convinced by them. I often see people asking for 'empirical', 'provable' and so on, and experiences can't really be tested as such.

Fair enough. I wouldn't expect folks to be moved by personal tales with this particular angle. Still, the fixation on so-called empirical/provable elements is something I often find frustrating in discussing the topic of religion. As much as I make comparisons between religions and sciences, religions are different from sciences in fundamental ways and should not be held to the same standards as sciences (for example, the notion of empirical evidence is often irrelevant in the context of religion while in the sciences it is always required).