Tools of Apologetics 1.18.7
Debating Techniques
An Analysis Of The Standard Techniques
Chapter 7
Debaters’ Tricks — 4
4-Sidetracking/Diverting: Debaters and listeners need to keep their focus on the main subject and the important issues throughout the discussion. If not, there will be much animated talk, but the result will not favour Truth. Knowing this, many crooked debaters side-track and divert the whole discussion into peripheral subject or even non-issues. Not realising this deception, everyone keeps thinking that the debate is going well. Actually it goes nowhere and falsehood comes out the winner. Some of the methods used for side-tracking and diverting debates are discussed below:
DIVERSION TO ANOTHER QUESTION OR SIDE ISSUE THROUGH IRRELEVANT OBJECTIONS, QUESTIONS, OR STATEMENTS: People who advocate erroneous views are often conscious of their weak stand. Truth is their greatest enemy and so as not be exposed they try to divert attention to side issues. This can be done in many ways, including the raising of irrelevant objections, questions, or by making irrelevant statements.
Thus, in a discussion of the Creation account, a person might ask for the exact identification of the Tree of Knowledge. He might say that unless it is identified exactly, the doctrine of the Fall cannot be formulated correctly. While this might look like a valid objection, it is actually only a diversion. The exact nature of the tree has no connection with the doctrine because the doctrine depends upon the historical reality of an event. What is important for the doctrine is whether the event is true. The exact nature of all the components of the event are not needed.
PROOF BY INCONSEQUENT ARGUMENT: Many times people try to prove reality by using arguments that look attractive, but which are actually not valid. Though they seem to reinforce the position of Apologists, such arguments should not be accepted. In the long run any logically inconsistent deduction will only hurt the cause of truth. For example, many people oppose evolution by claiming that today monkeys are not changing into humans. While this might look like a very attractive argument, it does not take the proposed mechanism of evolution into account. Consequently, the deduction is invalid. Apologists should reject all such arguments because they actually divert the debate proceedings from going in the right direction.
APPEAL TO SOUND DEDUCTION, BUT BASED UPON FAULTY PREMISES: This is very similar to the above argument. The deduction is sound, but the premises are faulty. It can be dealt in the same way as the above argument.
LOGICALLY INVALID OR FALSE DEDUCTIONS: Here the premises might be right or wrong, but the deduction is logically faulty. The fault might be accidental or even deliberate. The use of Logic in sound reasoning is a vast subject, and it has been discussed elsewhere in fuller detail.
ARGUMENT THAT WHEN A TERRIBLE EVIL Y EXISTS, WE SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT LESSER EVIL X: This is a favourite diversionary tactic of people who do not want to face the bitter consequences of evil attitude and choices. For example, when a person is caught in an offence, they argue that this person should not be punished as long as criminals who committed greater offences continue to be unpunished. The same argument comes in many other forms also. Appropriate Leading Questions would include applying the argument to the debaters themselves. Thus if a person says that a certain offender should not be punished, Apologists may ask whether the opponents would take the same stand if that crime were committed against their sons, daughters, spouses, or parents.
RECOMMENDATION OF A MEAN POSITION BETWEEN TWO EXTREME POSITIONS AS THE TRUE POSITION: There are many people who hate taking a stand. Taking a stand, specially in matters of doctrine and practice, involves paying a high price and making many sacrifices. At the same time, they do not want to be identified with groups that are totally anti-doctrine. Thus, to retain the best of both worlds, many of them recommend that everyone should take the mean position.
The mean-position argument looks very attractive, specially in our age of compromise. Listeners also readily agree with such an argument because it agrees well with their compromising attitudes. This kind of argument can only be exposed by asking relevant doctrinally-based Leading Questions. Thus Apologists might ask questions such as "Should we be interested in a mean position, or in a position ordered by the Bible?", etc.
ARGUMENT OVER THE SAME WORDS DIFFERENTLY DEFINED BY DIFFERING CAMPS: Words are the vehicles for communication, and most of the time people communicate accurately and without much ambiguity. However, this does not mean that word-meanings are always understood accurately by all people.Unfortunately, by years of use (or misuse) many words acquire more than one meaning. Thus in many debates one camp adopts one meaning, while the other camp adopts the other meaning. No meaningful communication is possible in such a situation. A good example is the arguments raised some time ago about "worship".
The general meaning of "worship" is to praise and thank God for who and what He is. However, in the last few decades the word "worship" has, in many churches, become an equivalent of the "Lord’s Supper". In the argument over whether the Lord’s Table is an essential part of "worship", each party had its own definition in mind and there was no common agreement about definition. This is the reason why the debate continued for so long without a conclusion. The solution is to accurately define the terms before continuing the debate.
EMPLOYMENT OF A WORD WITH MULTIPLE MEANINGS OR CHANGING MEANING DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT: Related to the previous point is the habit of people who craftily use words with multiple meanings. Others use words in one meaning in the beginning, but craftily switch to another meaning during the course of the debate. The solution is to affirm the precise meaning which is being used in the Debate repeatedly.
SUBMISSION OF A SPECULATIVE ARGUMENT: A commonly used method of side-tracking is to submit a speculative definition or argument, and then continue the debate based upon this speculation. While speculation is part of any discussion, starting with a speculative foundation is not legitimate. If that is done, the end result will diverge totally from the target. For example, many people approach the question of Evolution/Creation by assuming that the description in the first ten chapters of Genesis is poetry. This is a speculation, and the end-result is a devaluation of the Bible and biblical doctrines.The correct approach would be to begin with an evaluation of whether the first ten chapters are prose or poetry. This can be done without difficulty and there is no need for beginning with a speculation.
TRICKY DEMAND FOR DEFINITION: Definitions are an important part of any intellectual discussion, specially when a word used by the speakers might be new, or be one with more than a single meaning. However, clever debaters often ask their opponents for a definition with the specific purpose of side-tracking the debate. No sooner have their opponents given a definition, or they raise some objection, forcing a redefinition. This goes on till the opponent is totally side-tracked. A few years ago the elders in our church were discussing the issue of backsliding. One of the elders at that time was backsliding though it was not yet not known to the others. A skilled orator, he asked the others for a definition. Once they defined what a backslider is, he asked whether an occasional omission of prayer or devotion is enough to classify a person as a backslider. Then he asked them precisely how often people have to overlook these things before a person becomes a backslider, and so on. Very soon the whole committee was wasting time on arriving at a definition which did not have any exceptions. Unfortunately, this brother pointed out exceptions to every definition they came up with. Finally they dropped the subject, and this clever backslider won the debate. When Apologists suspect that their opponents are demanding a definition to trick them, they should move carefully. When the opponents point out exceptions, remind them that exceptions do not invalidate the rules, but only strengthen them.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF TO REASON: A standard ploy of people on the weaker side is to appeal to authorities favourable to their view. Evolutionists, false teachers, heretics and all kinds of perverts take recourse to this trick. In the world of scholarship, the rightness or wrongness of a subject is not decided by appeal to human authority, but by appeal to reason, logic and proof. Apologists must remind their opponents of this through appropriate Leading Questions.
FORMULATING QUESTIONABLE STATEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT FITS WELL WITH THE THOUGHT-PATTERNS OR PREJUDICES OF THE HEARERS: No human is perfect or all knowing. There will always be some subjectivity in us. Thus instead of giving a reason for their position, clever debaters can state their answer in a manner that appeals to the biases and prejudices of the hearers. Young people in many societies are prejudiced against older people. If a debate on love-marriage takes place in front of such young people, a debater might make statements like, "Loving another person is not a crime. Older people do not understand our needs. They grew up in a different society”, etc. Though no concrete arguments in favour of Love Marriage have been presented, the crowd cheers these statements because they fit in well with their inclinations. Apologists can counter by showing that several options are available in the matter discussed. Some of these options are definitely better than others. They can then show that the opponents gave no reason why their preferred option is better than the options advocated by others.
ACCEPTING OR REJECTING A PROPOSAL ON THE BASIS OF ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HEARERS: Truth is often painful, specially to people who run away from it. Many crooked speakers are able to sense the mood of the audience — whether they are truth-seekers, or runaways from truth. If they are runaways, the speaker begins by pleading that the opponent’s position will hurt the listeners. Then they will plead that the opponents not present their ideas to people, lest they feel bad.
The people opposed to the doctrine of Eternal Security often plead that this doctrine should not be taught. Not because it is an unbiblical doctrine, but because it will motivate people to become careless and sinful. This kind of argument looks very attractive, but it is not based in truth. Apologists may counter this kind of argument by requesting the opponent to lay down (with adequate explanation of reasons) the rules about when truth is not to be advocated in public.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats