Tools of Apologetics 1.18.8
Debating Techniques
An Analysis Of The Standard Techniques
Chapter 8
Debaters’ Tricks — 5
5-Creating Delusion/Confusion: Many debaters realize that the listeners are interested in hearing an open discussion. They might also realize that it is not easy to side-track their opponents. In such situations they stick to the subject being debated, but create such delusion or confusion that the main issues are overlooked. Many approaches exist for creating delusion and confusion, and some of the typical ones are:
CIRCULAR REASONING OR CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION: The person who takes a stand on an issue is obliged to furnish proof for taking this stand. Many people who advocate know this difficult for their position, and thus they get into proof or argumentation by circular reasoning. It is this type of conversation: “Where is your house? Beside the river. And where is the river? Beside the house!” Evolutionists use this argument when discussing fossils. Ask them how the age of the fossil is determined. They will claim that it is decided on the basis of what type of geological layer it was found in. Then ask how it is decided what type of layer it is. They will claim that that is decided by the type of fossils found in it. Obviously, no objective information can come out of such circular reasoning.
BEGGING THE QUESTION OR BEATING AROUND THE BUSH: When debaters want to create confusion, but find it difficult to divert people’s attention, they can confuse people by discussing peripheral issues. This gives them the advantage of dwelling upon the subject, while they do not have to touch upon the subject at all. For example, when discussing the questions of Tongues, Eternal Security, Justification By Faith, etc., people who do not want to discuss the subjects Biblically keep talking about the experience of this or that person, the opinions of scholars and so on.They seem to be speaking on the subject, but actually they are beating about the bush. Christian Apologists can solve the problem by constantly reminding the opponent that on any Biblical subject, the discussion should be based strictly upon what the Bible says.
ATTACKING THE OPPONENT’S CHARACTER: Another method for creating confusion among the hearers is to attack the character of the opponent. Actually the opponent’s character has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Rather, every subject should be discussed on the basis of facts. However, once the opponent’s character has been attacked, people’s attention is drawn away from the main subject and the actual issues are overlooked. We see the above tactics used repeatedly in the doctrinal arena. A person points out the errors and heresies prevalent among believers and immediately the heretics launch a character assassination camp against the Apologist. There is no talk about the doctrinal issues involved. The Apologist can face this situation, not by dwelling upon character, but by drawing the attention of the audience to the main subject involved.
USE OF DILEMMA AND IGNORING A RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES: Some debaters restate the subject in such a way that an appropriate choice becomes a dilemma. Others restate the subject in such a way that only two extreme choices are available and all the middle range of possibilities are ignored. For example, on discussing Family Planning, pro-abortion people compare only two extreme possibilities: either give birth to and raise an unplanned child, or terminate it. Obviously, those who are not of a mind to raise another child immediately opt for abortion. The middle possibilities like having the child adopted, or counting upon the grace of God to raise another child are overlooked. Apologists should understand all possibilities, and then present them systematically and with conviction. Then they should follow up with appropriate Leading Questions.
USE OF CONTINUITY TO REFUTE CLEAR DEMARCATION: Clear cut demarcation is essential in many areas of life like examinations, property limits, responsibilities in the office, etc. Such demarcation is also essential in the spiritual life to distinguish among essential, optional and forbidden things. People fight against such demarcation by pointing out borderline cases. Thus many people advocate mercy for children who failed because they obtained only 32 marks in an examination where the pass mark was 33. They claim that after all there is no material difference between the children who obtained 33 and passed the exam and those who achieved only 32 and failed. This argument looks convincing till we realize that the child who obtained only 31 is not much different from the one who obtained 32. Thus if the one with 32 marks is granted a pass, what about the one with 31 and so on? The Leading Questions in such cases should address the issue of determining a demarcation somewhere. They should also address the question of how much tampering one can do with such demarcation. Thus, by shifting the debate from the case of one unfortunate incident to the actual principles involved, the debate can be led in a more meaningful and deeper direction.
PROJECTING A PICTURE OF INDIFFERENCE: There are many cowards in every community. They do not wish to take a stand on any side. Alternately, they prefer to take a stand on the wrong side, but do not want to reveal their loyalties. Such people often come up with the confusing argument that both sides have many arguments in their favour, and therefore they are not interested in taking a stand. If the issue is trivial like whether the Transport Buses should be painted Red or Blue, much can be said on both sides and one needs not take a stand. However, if the debate deals with topics like the reliability of the Bible, evolution/creation, sin and salvation, justification by faith or works, there is no middle position. A stand has to be taken, and the Apologist has to make it clear through Leading Questions.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats