Tools of Apologetics 1.19.2
Responding To Debating Techniques
Chapter 2
Types Of Debates/Approaches
Debates these days can be compared to Free-Style wrestling. This means that while you might be a principled analyst, your opponents are not bound by any principles of conduct or speech. They are free to hit below the belt and they will surely do so at every opportunity available to them. What is more, many approaches have been developed to defeat sound and systematic analysis. Thus in debates you will have to face many surprising strategies. Some of the frequently used strategies are mentioned below. Each one has a definite advantage for the dishonest debater, and the advantage multiplies when your opponent combines more than one trick for use at the same time. As a skilled debater you should be quick to recognize these tactics and counter them immediately and effectively. (Of course "leading questions" are the best weapon in the hands of a Christian Apologist!). Here are the most common approaches used in debates.
1-RAPID-FIRE (MACHINE GUN) APPROACH: Here the opponents come prepared and fire a series of questions. No sooner has the Apologist begun to tackle these, than they fire another burst of questions. Like the bullets sprayed from a machine-gun, they hit the opponent with force and try to kill him. The basic aim of the Rapid Fire approach is not to get answers, but to overwhelm the Apologist with a flood of questions. Since none can effectively handle barrage after barrage of questions, in the end they can point to many questions that remain unanswered. Even the most experienced Apologists are unable to answer at least some of these persons’ questions because they do not give one time to think and answer those questions.
This approach is used quite frequently by Muslims who argue against the Christian faith. The best way to tackle the Rapid Fire or Machine Gun approach is to firmly ask the opponent to stop and ask the next series of questions only AFTER you have answered all the questions in the previous batch. Nobody can find fault with the Apologist who wants to answer ALL questions, and who insists that he wants to answer them all.
2-BANYAN TREE (JUMPING SQUIRREL) APPROACH: The Banyan tree is known for its dense leaves, branches and also for its dense look. An argument in which the opponent tries to hang the apologist in the dense branches of the tree of argument is called the Banyan Tree approach. This approach is comparable to the Jumping Squirrel, because in some places in our country squirrels do not flee from humans. They allow people to get quite close to them, but no sooner has this person come close enough to catch it, than the squirrel jumps to the next branch. The squirrel keeps on repeating this till the person chasing it is tired and retires.
The opponent in this case never allows the Apologist to finish his point. No sooner does the Apologist seem to solve the problem, than he moves on to another point and so on. This approach is most often used by Hindus who argue with Christians. Hindu theology and philosophy are like a vast Banyan tree, with numerous branches and sub branches. Practically no Christian is knowledgeable in all the intricacies of the Hindu philosophies. Thus a well-prepared Hindu debater can use this approach successfully against Christian Apologists.
The best defense against the Banyan Tree or the Jumping Squirrel approach is to ask opponents not to ask the next question till you have finished answering the first one. Also, if they are Hindu, then some knowledge of the Hindu philosophy would be helpful to anticipate their questions.
3-BLOCKING (GOALKEEPER) APPROACH: This approach is often used by those insincere debaters who do not want the debate to proceed in any useful way. Like goalkeepers, their only desire is to block your progress at any costs. You can recognize such debaters by they way they proceed in the discussion with you. If, instead of inquiring, all they do is to block your presentation by raising objections, pointing to exceptions, or by using any other ways of creating barriers, then they are trying to block.
Of course almost all debaters try to block their opponents, but at the same time they try to advance their own points. But if, during an extended discussion people do nothing except block your arguments by using unfair tactics, they are not interested in debate. The best approach would be to expose that person by asking aptly chosen Leading Questions.
Consider the example of a Father asking his teenage son to become involved in Church activities and the uninterested teenager blocking all his arguments by producing silly reasons. Often the father can expose his insincerity by asking a single Leading Question: “You are raising many objections. Suppose I resolve all those objections, would you then be willing to become involved?” Most often the shock, unwillingness and defiance with which they respond to the Father will indicate that the objections are merely pretexts to block the Father’s suggestions. The objections were not produced because he wanted them to be removed. Once the insincerity of the debater is exposed through Leading Questions, the Christian Apologist can proceed to win the case.
4-SEMANTIC ACROBATICS (JUGGLING) APPROACH: Some debaters are clever at using language. They can juggle words and meanings in such a way that the discussion seems to be proceeding well, but actually the debaters arrive nowhere. This is because these people use words with multiple meanings, and therefore they are not saying what they seem to say.
Neo Orthodox theologians, the Post Modernist thinkers and the Emotionalists and Mystics of our generation are a good example. These people use vocabulary which is used by others, but attribute totally different meanings to them. For example, the Neo Orthodox people try to portray themselves as theologically conservative by using theological vocabulary used by Conservatives. However, the deception lies in the way they define these words.
Thus when Neo Orthodox debaters talk about Sin, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, Justification, Revelation, Jesus Christ, Word Of God, Eternal Life, etc. they mean things totally different from the way Conservatives use these words. Unless Apologists understand this juggling of words and meanings, they will never win their case.
The best approach is to pick up key words (say Jesus), give the correct definition (the historical Jesus of Nazareth) and ask their opponents if they are using the word with that meaning in mind. This is one kind of Leading Question which can quickly expose the Semantic Acrobatics of the opponent. (Note: when Neo Orthodox theologians use the word Jesus, they are not talking about the historical Jesus, but rather about some abstract experience in the hearts of the hearers).
5-SLIPPERY-STAND (SLIPPERY FROG) APPROACH: This kind of debaters participate with great enthusiasm in the debate, and try to present their arguments forcefully. However, like slippery frogs, they do not allow the Apologist to nail down the point (or points) they make. They themselves never himself make and never allow the Apologist to make a precisely worded statement of their points. Whenever a person’s arguments can be stated in precise and non ambiguous terms, it becomes possible to evaluate the merits as well as demerits of those arguments. This opponents avoid by never stating their points precisely. Even if the Apologist tries to nail down their points, they jump to alternate explanations.
Slippery-stand approach is a good example of verbal deception. Debating with this kind of opponents can be very tough and trying, but is not impossible if the Apologist has patience. The best approach is to face the debater tirelessly, ask Leading Questions on each of their statements, and force them to admit precisely what they are saying. The Apologist might have to rephrase the opponents’ statements in many ways and ask whether that is what they mean. Finally a point will come when they will not be able to escape.
Slippery Stand approach is very common among the Jesus Only Cultists. They will say many things to prove that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same Person. However, initially they will never directly admit that they believe in this heresy (known as Modalism). Every time that the Apologist tries to represent their doctrinal position, they will slip away. However, consistent questioning will expose even the most experienced Slippery-Stand Debater.
6-PHILOSOPHICAL EDIFICE (SMOKESCREEN) APPROACH: Debaters who have a good background in philosophy (specially the Eastern Mystic Philosophies) can often build up such an edifice of philosophical words that everybody is fooled into thinking that they are making some valid arguments. What they are actually doing is to trap the listeners, confuse them with philosophical speculation and evade the issues being debated.
The Philosophical Edifice works like a smokescreen, which obscures the view and hides the enemy behind it. This approach is used by two kinds of people. First, those who are themselves confused by their own position, due to philosophical speculation. Second, those who know their position clearly, but who use the philosophical approach so that others might never guess their actual position on these issues.
The Neo Orthodox writers are the best example of people who use the Philosophical Edifice approach among Christians. They do so to hide the fact that they DO NOT accept any of the orthodox doctrines, but want to give the impression that they do accept them. Cutting across the smokescreen using Leading Questions is the best method for fighting this kind of deception. The Apologist should not be afraid to keep asking questions of this kind of debaters.
7-SPECULATIVE (FOG) APPROACH: Some people are experts at weaving a web of speculative thinking about any subject whatsoever. Since it costs them only a couple of words, they fearlessly build speculation upon speculation till it all becomes voluminous. The deception lies in the fact that they never separate their speculations from facts. Once a few initial speculations are made, they construct the rest of the case by using speculations but they never mention that these are speculations. Rather, once the initial speculations are over, they speak confidently about the rest of the speculations, giving everyone the impression that they are speaking established facts. Like a fog, speculation can be quite voluminous, thought ultimately it contains very little substance.
Evolutionists, rationalists, theistic evolutionists, gap theorists, day-age theorists, revelatory-day supporters, etc. are some of the people who use this approach. The speculative nature of their arguments can be exposed only if the Apologist goes to their foundational claims and exposes their speculative nature. Once this is done, the rest of the fog clears fast, the way the rising sun destroys fog.
8-PRESUPPOSITIONAL (SWINGING BIRD) APPROACH: When two people discuss a subject, they should both hold the same presupposition. Else no meaningful discussion is possible. However, some people begin with peculiar presuppositions of their own and then just assume that everyone else accepts these suppositions. Unfortunately, others often do not even know about these peculiar presuppositions.
There is a proverb that when the Swinging Bird sits on an electric wire and swings, it begins to think that it is at rest and that it is the Universe which is oscillating. This is the approach of these people. It is quite difficult for any meaningful discussion to take place without first exposing these presuppositions. Muslims who approach Christians to argue about the reliability of the Christian faith often exhibit this attitude. They often talk with respect about the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels. Christians assume that they are talking about the Bible, but they are wrong. Most of the times the Muslim is talking about that hypothetical copy of Law, Prophets and the Gospels that conforms to the Muslim expectations. This is why they often dispute quotations taken from the Bible. Only appropriate Leading Questions will make them confess that when they use these words they are not referring to the Bible which Christians possess.
9-CONFUSION-CREATION (LIZARD’S TAIL) APPROACH: Scientists say that on facing a predator the lizard drops its tail and flees the scene. Meanwhile, the writhing tail diverts the attention of the predator, making it all the more easy for the lizard to escape with its life. The same approach is used by many debaters. Once they know that their side is weak, these debaters ask numerous irrelevant questions and raise numerous unrelated issues, and shake the audience. Not having discernment, the mob thinks that these are the important issues. Thus attention is diverted from the main issue.
This approach is often used by the Prajapati Cult and its sympathizers. During any discussion, they raise so many peripheral questions and issues that the attention of the general public is diverted to side-issues and the main subject remains untouched. The only solution for this Confusion-Creation and Diversion is to ask appropriate Leading Question to bring them back to the main issue.
10-MOCKERY/PEJORATIVE TALK (SKUNK) APPROACH: In any crowd there will always be some people who are hostile to truth. The nasty debtor can always count upon their sympathies. Thus on losing the argument these debaters indulge in mockery, pejorative talk and character assassination. Instead of countering ideas with ideas, they counter ideas with mockery.
While many mature people in the audience will immediately recognize this travesty, most people just flow with the current. This is a very dishonest trick and it is very difficult for an honest Apologist to face these people. There is often a temptation to counter mockery with mockery, but there are no long-term gains in this approach. On the contrary, the Apologist would lose the sympathy of the common folk as well as of the more discerning listeners.
The best approach is to stick to facts and repeatedly refocus attention on the original issues. It might also be helpful to point out to the crowd that ideas should be opposed with the help of ideas and not with mockery. This approach might not seem to win immediately, but in the long run the more mature people will side with the thoughtful presentation of the Christian Apologist.
Summary
Analyzing opponents’ arguments and exposing their weakness is an important part of presenting the truth. This becomes quite difficult in a public debate, but a prepared Christian Apologist can do much. Keep the fundamentals of debating techniques in mind, keep analyzing and keep presenting the truth in an appropriate manner.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats