The "Kangaroo Court" Debate Style

[PureX]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

 

[MikeF]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

Can anyone ever be wrong, misinformed, insufficiently informed, succumb to self-deception, become entrenched in confirmation bias?

If so, how do we know? Or perhaps it is better to ask, how is that determination made?

 

[Quintessence]

There's a reason why I often talk about maps of territories, paintings of landscapes, paradigms, axiomatic assumptions, and so forth.

However, it is important to recognize that all humans fall somewhere on a spectrum between being concrete thinkers and permeable thinkers. This is something that came up in some of my psychology coursework back in undergrad, so there's probably a great deal more research on this topic than I have the expertise to present here. In essence, though, folks will either lean towards:

• Concrete Thinking. Also known as "inside the box" thinking. It is what it is, period. Rigid and inflexible, it forms an important foundation of a functional worldview that lets its operator go about daily life. Tends to approach things in black-and-white, either-or terms. Not permeable to new ideas or information, cannot see outside the limitations of its own nature.
• Permeable Thinking. Also known as "outside the box" thinking. It is and it isn't, kinda. Fluid and mutable, it weaves together different worldviews that embraces paradox, contradiction, and uncertainty. Tends to approach things in shades of grey, both-and terms. Not concrete or able to provide structure, cannot develop consistent rules or views.

Neither of these is better than the other really, and they kind of complement one another. But some folks are just really, really rigid thinkers about certain topics and actually incapable of more fluid thinking about that topic. They've made their rules and stick to them. They've no interest whatsoever in entertaining other ways of thinking. That's fair. I just don't engage with those folks, more often than not. Not really my place to upend or stab holes in their box and so long as they leave me alone, live and let live.

 

[Ebionite]

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

There's a connection between ego and judgment in the common law doctrine that the king can do no wrong. The doctrine isn't supported by the history of kings. This connection makes its way to politics via the union of the church and state.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

The greatest sadness with all of this is that the truth is never found in such circumstances and we all suffer from the injustice of the approach.

Regards Tony

 

[Estro Felino]

The debate should be based upon mutual respect.
And on the premise that both debaters, both interlocutors have the same rights, the same intellectual value.

If a debater starts the debate by saying: "I am superior to you, because I am God and you are nothing, so whatever you're going to say, it will not be considered reliable, even if you bring me tons of evidence", well...then there is no a real, equal debate founded upon ethical pillars.
But it's a monologue where a debater belittles the other.

 

[Ebionite]

The debate should be based upon mutual respect.

In an ideal world that would be true. In reality there are factions that are so ideologically apart that the debate is a form of warfare. The only solution I know of is for people to to learn what it is to judge without prejudice.

 

[Estro Felino]

In an ideal world that would be true. In reality there are factions that are so ideologically apart that the debate is a form of warfare. The only solution I know of is for people to to learn what it is to judge without prejudice.

The Socratic method says that anyone can change their mind, because the dialogue, the debate is the path to a middle ground, a compromise between two extreme stances.

 

[Ebionite]

The Socratic method says that anyone can change their mind, because the dialogue, the debate is the path to a middle ground, a compromise between two extreme stances.

Socrates didn't have to deal with the union of church and state, where faith and security are so closely intertwined.

 

[Nakosis]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

The silly thing then I think would for the person to continue the debate.
Certainly no one is required to respond to this type of tactic.
People used to recommend to not feed the trolls.

 

[Ebionite]

People used to recommend to not feed the trolls.

One technique of debate is to label someone as a troll so that the actual argument doesn't have to be addressed.

 

[Quintessence]

The Socratic method says that anyone can change their mind, because the dialogue, the debate is the path to a middle ground, a compromise between two extreme stances.

Yes, Greek philosophers also put an emphasis on the middle path being the road to virtue. It was kind of their whole thing, culturally. Others took the perspective that provided something is well-reasoned, there is no need to exclude what is perceived to be extreme, especially since "extreme" is principally a matter of one's frame of reference.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, Greek philosophers also put an emphasis on the middle path being the road to virtue. It was kind of their whole thing, culturally. Others took the perspective that provided something is well-reasoned, there is no need to exclude what is perceived to be extreme, especially since "extreme" is principally a matter of one's frame of reference.

What constitutes reasoning well, though. There has to be some criteria there, some standard or measure to say whether it was "reasoned" well, or it wasn't.

In my view, to reason well requires sufficient information that can be justifiably held with sufficient confidence. How do we know when the necessary sufficiency has been met?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think that, for the purposes of this forum, it would be nice to have a definition and explanation of just what a debate is. Maybe it already exists, and I'm not aware of it.

 

[PureX]

Can anyone ever be wrong, misinformed, insufficiently informed, succumb to self-deception, become entrenched in confirmation bias?

Everyone can.

If so, how do we know?

We don’t know or we wouldn’t be wrong, would we.

Or perhaps it is better to ask, how is that determination made?

Certainly not by railroading others into our own little kangaroo court so we can always be right.

 

[PureX]

There's a connection between ego and judgment in the common law doctrine that the king can do no wrong. The doctrine isn't supported by the history of kings. This connection makes its way to politics via the union of the church and state.

And into our own minds, it seems, often enough.

 

[Ebionite]

And into our own minds, it seems, often enough.

It's a predictable consequence of a security relationship with the state.

 

[Quintessence]

What constitutes reasoning well, though. There has to be some criteria there, some standard or measure to say whether it was "reasoned" well, or it wasn't.

In my view, to reason well requires sufficient information that can be justifiably held with sufficient confidence. How do we know when the necessary sufficiency has been met?

At the end of the day, there's only a personal answer to that question. At least as far as I've been able to discern, any standard of "reasoning well" is made up. While there have been philosophical schools arguing there is something approaching objectively existing ideals or standards - say, that reason is an inherent property of the universe that can be discovered like mathematics can - I'm not convinced the human limits of knowledge would permit accurately identifying or knowing one knows such ideals anyway. And what does it even matter to have such immutable ideals or standards in a world that is in a state of constant change and transformation? There's something to be said for the comfort and peace of mind or sense of security that believe in "objective" things grants - whether it's "objective reality" or "objective morality" or "objective reasoning standards" or whatever. Not really my jive, but the concrete thinkers are all over it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

Thing is though, what you described is how I feel debates are suppose to work.

If one side says "I believe X", and the other side says "That sounds great", that's not a debate.

In debates, two sides go at it, in order to try to convince the crowd (though they may still make statements like "I don't believe..." about something, or point out how it's wrong.)

More often though, there is a mismatch - one poster doesn't know how to do formal debates, and the other does, leading to one poster simply posting their personal opinions, and the other treating it like a formal debate and refuting them quickly, and being a bit relentless about it - especially given the other poster doesn't know formal debate style and simply posts opinions that are very personal to them (which is often an intellectual taboo for formal debates).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

(Continued....)

One might also make the case that "Not all RF debates are formal debates" - after all, people may just want the option of talking and disagreeing. But it's evident that a few threads - especially in the One-on-One debates section - do end up kind of being formal debates. So things become confusing because no one ever says "This is a formal debate." or "This is not intended as a formal debate." at the start of the thread.

Not to mention, when two skilled debaters take over a thread and argue back and forth as if it's a formal debate (a rather rare occurrence, but it happens), things kind of become a formal debate unfolding anyway. So far, anyway.