Tools of Apologetics 1.18.6
Debating Techniques
An Analysis Of The Standard Techniques
Chapter 6
Debaters’ Tricks — 3
3-Deceit/Outright Cheating: In many cases debaters feel that deceiving and cheating the audience is the best and the easiest approach. When successfully done, the effects last very long and the lie perpetuates itself from person to person. Thus deceit and cheating play a very important role in the presentation of those who present crooked arguments.
Radicals who fight against the Bible, Evolutionists who suppress all information harmful to their theory, and the deviant movement that suppresses information damaging to them, all come into this category. They indulge in deceit and outright cheating for the sole purpose of winning the debate and not for truth to prevail. Deceit and cheating in debate manifest in many ways, and some of them are:
PROOF BY SELECTIVE EVIDENCE: Whether it be physical sciences, biological science, or the historical-legal sciences, ALL available evidence should be taken into consideration before arriving at a conclusion. In a complex subject, the same set of proofs can often lead to differing conclusions. Thus in many court cases the available evidence points strongly in one direction, only to be reversed when a single conflicting detail of information comes to light. Clearly, taking account of only a small amount of evidence can tilt the conclusion in a direction that leads away from truth. At the same time, when all information is taken into consideration and when even conflicting information is not overlooked, then the deductions will often be closer to the truth.
Evolutionists are a good example of people who thrive upon selective information. Though the support in favour of their theory is only scanty, they keep presenting it. At the same time, the vast amount of information that goes against the theory is suppressed. The same is the case with anyone who argues with a vested interest in winning and not in discovering the truth. The antidote is to insist that the opponent should take ALL evidence into consideration.
EVASION OF A SOUND ARGUMENT OR REFUTATION THROUGH ELOCUTION OR SOPHISTIC FORMULA: The ancient Greece had a breed of people known as Sophists who were experts at proving day to be night and white to be black. They did this be weaving a web of words in front of the unsuspecting listeners. Though the Sophists are no more, there is even today, no dearth of people who follow in their footsteps. Instead of meeting an argument with a solid counter-argument, they oppose it with persuasive words and tricks of Sophistry. It is most evident in the political arena, but it does manifest itself within the Christian community also. Those who spread apostasy are great at using this technique. The antidote is to recall their attention to the facts.
SUGGESTION AND IMPRINTING BY REPEATED AFFIRMATION: Humans have this weakness that repeated affirmation lulls them into believing a statement even if it is totally false and damaging. This strategy was used by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister. Joseph Goebbels used to claim that if you repeat a lie a hundred times with confidence, most people will accept it as a fact. Theological radicals, rationalists, evolutionists and many others are masters at repeated affirmation. They do this with such great confidence that people start believing them even without having any proof. The way in which Christians in India have started following the Prajapati Cult, which falsely claims that Christ is in the Vedas, is the result of this technique. This approach should be countered before their affirmations start imprinting on the minds of the hearers. The best method to counter them is to ask for specific proofs.
SUGGESTION/INFLUENCING BY USING CONFIDENT MANNER/ASSERTIONS: Some people are so gullible that they believe any statement if a person makes it with great confidence. Even repeated affirmation is not necessary to influence these people, because they do not have the training to evaluate serious subjects critically. When speakers use this tactic, the only way left for Apologists is to point out that their assertions need documentation and proof.
SUGGESTION/INTIMIDATION BY APPEAL TO PRESTIGE: Every society contains numerous people who are awed by the prestige of speakers. The prestige might be due to their ecclesiastical, academic, civil, social, or political position. While position is a good thing, it does not automatically confer authority on such persons to make pronouncements on any subject. Though there is no connection between their prestige and the accuracy of the statements prestigious people make, many people use appeal to Prestige to intimidate their opponents. Christian Apologists should make a point of it to point out politely that they respect such people’s positions, but that their positions do not automatically confer on them the authority to make infallible pronouncements. A couple of Leading Questions would also help.
PRESTIGE BY FALSE CREDENTIALS: We live in a society that is awed by credentials, specially if these are academic in nature. Thus there are many who claim to have high degrees, research experience and knowledge of a similar nature, when these credentials do not actually exist. Things are so bad, that currently there are a flood of Institutions in India that sell doctorates to any person (qualified or not) for money. An appeal to false credentials is foolish for all debaters and they can easily be exposed by asking a few leading questions about the subjects in which they ostensibly did research and the institutions at which they studied.
PRESTIGE BY EMPLOYING PSEUDO-TECHNICAL JARGON: Many people have a false impression that if people use highly technical words, they must be scholars speaking with great authority. While it is true that scholars are capable of using highly technical vocabulary, most of them use only very simple language when they speak to ordinary people. Thus the usage of technical words in itself is not sufficient to gauge a person’s scholarship. Crooked debaters use not only difficult words, but also words that are meaningless in the given context. The audience, however, is greatly impressed. The best solution in such a situation is be to summarize the meaning of the opponents’ technical jargon in simple words. Then ask them if the summary is correct. Once they have agreed that the summary in simple words is correct, the Apologist can refute their argument by using appropriate Leading Questions.
BOOSTING THE ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDENT’S APPARENT IGNORANCE AND ONE’S OWN PRESTIGE: This is a tactic usually used by teachers to suppress inquisitive students. They fire a volley of questions at students and then scold them for not knowing such basic things. The students are so terrified that they do not dare open their mouths again. Some debaters try this technique on the general public. Christian Apologists can begin by demonstrating that nobody is omniscient. They can then point out that just because a respondent does not know everything, it does not automatically mean that the debater is right and the respondent is wrong.
TRICKY QUESTIONS TO ELICIT DAMAGING ADMISSIONS: When discussing a subject, debaters often ask questions that have no connection with the subject. At the same time, the answers (if given by Apologists) can be used to damage the Apologists. For example, when discussing the question of Evolution/Creation, many evolutionists will ask Apologists whether they believe in a six-day creation, a young earth, Adam/Eve, and Garden of Eden. If he answers yes, the evolutionist uses it to mock them in public. The best solution is to refuse to answer all questions which have no bearing on the subject under discussion.
FIRST USING BELIEVABLE/ACCEPTABLE STATEMENTS TO BREAK RESISTANCE AND THEN SLIPPING IN DOUBTFUL STATEMENTS: This is a standard tactic used by theological radicals and false cults. They begin by speaking on subjects that are acceptable to people. This helps the debater overcome the listener’s apprehension. Once the listeners have been put at ease, the debater introduces the errors.
SPECIAL PLEADING: Some arguments look very convincing in one context, but look totally wrong in another. This is because the argument has no solid logical foundation. Picking up such a useless argument and presenting it in only the favourable situation (while the other applications with opposite results are ignored) is called Special Pleading.
A good example of Special Pleading is the Micro Evolution to Macro Evolution application. Everyone notices changes at micro level, such as one pair of dogs giving rise to a variety of dogs over several generations. It is a fact that such changes take place, but it is confined only to the category to which it belongs. Dogs produce only a variety of dogs, and cats produce only a variety of cats. But if a person applies this observation to claim that dogs can change into cats, it is special pleading. This is because, though change has been demonstrated at the micro level, this observation is invalid at Mega level. The best refutation is to show the variety of situations where the arguments fail, and then ask Leading Questions based upon this demonstration.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats