Tools of Apologetics 1.18.3
Debating Techniques
An Analysis Of The Standard Techniques
Chapter 3
Multiple Meanings And Dishonest Tricks
Words are the tools of communication. Every word has multiple meanings, but most of the time the context of the speech reveals which meaning is to be preferred. However, dishonest debaters and propagandists can use the presence of multiple meanings to great advantage. Since their use of language is calculated and contrived, the listener often fails to recognize the deception. Some of the ways in which multiple meanings enter human speech are given below.
DENOTATION/CONNOTATION: A large number of words (whether in daily or in technical use) have two types of meanings — the actual one and the implied ones. The implied meanings may, in many cases, be totally different from the actual meaning. They may even have a pejorative or indicting meaning. People who manipulate language well can thus choose words in such a way that their speech denotes a totally harmless and right meaning, but the connotations may be highly damaging or defaming to the opponent. Thus the words dog and bitch in normal use denote the male and female of a domesticated animal. However, in religious and social circles these words have many connotations that are damaging to people’s characters. Radicals use the word "myth" similarly. They denote one meaning for this word (which technically looks harmless), while the connotations, to laypeople, are totally damaging to the Bible.
It is total dishonesty on the part of a debater to use words with double implications for the express purpose of hurting an opponent with the hidden connotation. Arguing for truth and winning becomes very difficult in such situations because the actual implications of the statements remain verbally unsaid and it is not easy to attack implied meanings. Also, since the lay audience might not be able to analyse the difference between denotation and connotations of words logically, it becomes all the more difficult to argue the case in front of a technically unqualified audience.
EMOTIONAL OVERTONES: All groups of people have subjects of interest, longings, fancies, fear, hatred and are ever lazy. All of them have some subjects that are taboo for discussion or practice. All of them have some subjects that would raise more heat than light. A public discussion on these subjects cannot remain objective.
All discussion of truth should be objective. However, when people’s emotions are involved, the discussion becomes subjective and it becomes impossible for the discussion to proceed in a meaningful manner in a useful direction. Emotion is such a strong force that it can cloud clear thinking in even the most learned people. Thus the subject of ornaments among the Brethren of Kerala, the subject of tongues among the Pentecostals, and the subject of predestination among Calvinists are such issues. No sooner has a discussion started than people become so passionate that a Biblically balanced discussion becomes impossible.
Clever debaters are known to manipulate the emotions of an audience to win the debate. Many of them are so adept at it that even their opponents do not realize how the emotions of the audience are being manipulated. Unfortunately, once emotions have been touched, no attempt at rational thinking will succeed. The audience will only favour that speaker who manipulated their emotions. Any large collection of people may easily be turned into a mindless mob, who will then display only what is called a "mob mentality". Once a crowd has been manipulated into this kind of mentality, it respects no law or order, is not bound by any rules, and cannot be controlled except by the use of force. This is why police has to resort to the use of tear-gas and fire upon crowds that had initially been very peaceful, but which became violent after listening to the provoking speeches of their aggressive leaders.
There is no known antidote to emotional manipulation. Force may be used to deny further opportunity to the speaker (who manipulated their emotions) but such violent action is not conducive to winning hearts for truth. The best method against emotional manipulation is prevention. Speakers should take care to deny the opponent every opportunity to manipulate public emotions.
This might require of them to employ a sharp and strong moderator would be quick to perceive the direction in which a debater is going and immediately prevent the erring speaker from continuing. This is not always a very good alternative, specially in front of a large audience, because much damage can be done by persuasive speakers before they are prevented from further speech.
Another (and perhaps the best) approach would be to speak in front of smaller groups of people so that the chances of the group turning into an unruly mob are reduced. Also it is easier to be selective in who attends a smaller group and those who only come to mock can usually be eliminated. In such a case it is easier to lead them into truth.
ALL/MANY/SOME CONFUSION: The words all, many and some, when attached to sentences, totally alter their meaning. In common speech people are not always very careful about the way they use these words and often use ALL for MANY, and MANY for SOME without many serious repercussions. The respondent usually understands the correct meaning from the context. However, it is not so in a debate. In a debate, where people have gathered for the specific purpose of discussing clashing viewpoints, the way in which these words are used can affect the whole proceeding. For example, everyone knows that many politicians are corrupt. So are many preachers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen and scientists. But if, instead of using MANY, a speaker uses the word ALL for designating corrupt people in these groups, this would become a false representation. This would in turn make many people tense and the eventual result would be chaotic.
The best antidote to the confusion created by the deliberate interchange of these three words would be to bring to truth to light by using appropriate Leading Questions. By successive Leading Questions it can be demonstrated that where opponents used the word ALL, the word SOME would have been more appropriate. Often this is sufficient to diffuse their arguments.
Conclusion
Debating is a good method for arriving at the truth, provided that all sides participating in a debate are sincere and honest. However, in real life, many people do not debate to arrive at the truth but to win, even if they are wrong. Consequently, many debaters use dishonest techniques to achieve victory. In a debate speech takes place so fast that the audience is often not afforded the time to analyze which side is presenting the truth. Therefore, rather than leaving it all in the hands of the audience (which is often undiscerning), Christian Apologists should take care to counter and neutralize their opponents’ techniques effectively.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats