Well, originally I was going to write about my argumentativeness, but I got off on a tangent on debates. Not debates like you would see on a debate team. Rather, the kind you would encounter in splendid converstaion. So here are my rules.
#1 The easiest thing is that it has to be a subject that is interesting. Really the only thing that I could imagine falling into this category would be where people are talking way over my head and I can't picture it in my mind. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I couldn't spin to be an interesting topic of discussion with the right person.
#2 There need to be two sides of an argument. This is a general rule. It can be bypassed, but you have to have a couple people willing to play both sides of the story. When you are debating with someone over the same topic on the same side, you'll have to come up with your own counter arguments. While this works and can still get you new ideas and trains of thought, its not as good as actually having someone with that opinion.
#3 Have at least an idea of what you're talking about. You don't need to be an expert, but you have to be able to challenge the ideas that are being presented to you. Otherwise its a one sided conversation. This is great a lot of times, but more often people talk about superficial things that are not on this same level of deep conversation.
#4 Both parties need to truly be open minded. This is a critical rule. Each person needs to know they are not trying to convert the other to their idea of thinking, but rather convey their own thoughts on the issue in a way the other can understand. Too often, this is the piece that people forget and it becomes a bludgeoning match without any new thoughts.
As a side note, just because someone is liberal, it doesn't mean they are open minded. And just because someone is conservative, it doesn't mean they are close minded. Please remember that.
#5 The last part of a good debate is the structure. You start off with a main argument. It can be as simple as "That guys mullet is awesome." The other side would obviously be the negative of that. From there you will make a point like, "Its a mullet, but he can still get the girls, therefore it must be awesome." The other side will make a counter argument to this. Don't get hung up on the same small points over and over, and don't make lame arguments that have no substance to them. Then repeat this process.
If both of you follow these rules, your conversations will traverse a very wide range of topics. Generally.
So if anyone wants to practice, let me know and we'll go have some good conversations over some chai.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was interesting.I was actually thinking of this. I'm taking a Bioethics class and I thought of you and how interesting it would be to have discussions with you.
ReplyDeleteLike your rules - we'll think of a good topic for next time I see you :)
ReplyDeleteHave a fantastic week w/ lots of great debates!
Well...I'll just go ahead and start it off with a simple but large metaphorical bang.
ReplyDelete1.God does not exist.
2.Believing in god is dangerous to both the believers and everyone affected by their belief-driven behavior.
Have a nice day.
good points, drew!
ReplyDeleteand fox, i like the way you think.
I just had an assignment on this subject I brought up, so here's my argument against.
ReplyDelete***************************
In light of the arguments, both pro and con, in our course readings, is belief in God rational?
Note that I'm not asking you to tell me whether you believe in god; that is none of my business. Rather, I want to know whether you think that belief in God is the kind of thing that can be rationally supported.
Your response may be based on personal feelings, values, or sentiments, but you must provide good reasons for any claim that you make. In other words, I want you to address the issue by providing either a sound deductive argument or a cogent inductive argument for your view.
No, it is not rational to believe in god.
The Cosmological Argument is based entirely on a flawed first premise. Although the conclusion follows logically, the explanation that everything that exists must have a cause for existing is false premise. Perhaps this did seem more intuitive at time, but our current understanding of science contradicts this. Specifically I would point out quantum mechanics, where we find that subatomic particles act very chaotically and perform observable actions randomly, with no cause. This has been difficult enough for the physicists, let alone any theologian that attempts to apply a necessary cause argument to the universe.
The argument definitely seems to be whether it is rational to believe in god rather than whether it is rational to believe there is not a god. I will point to Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot for that point. And of course the Problem of Evil makes a very good deductive argument against the existence of god, for which I have very poor arguments against. The primary argument is that god has a reason for allowing evil. This still contradicts the description of omnibenvolence. Furthermore, the argument can be traced back to the origin of evil. How could an an omnibenevolent god create the possibility of evil existing in the universe god created? And even if god could do so, why would an omnibenevolent god do so?
The very description of god as necessarily being a supernatural seems to contradict the very idea that you could rationalize a belief in god. We live in a natural world and use logic based on the natural world. For example, nothing can be and not be in the natural world. Perhaps in a supernatural world (where god exists), it is possible to be and not be at the same time.
To even accept the initial argument that it is rational to believe that god it exists, it seems impossible to be able to describe or define any further. Again, being supernatural, how could we define something, which is a description of our natural world. If god exists, it is just as ir/rational to believe that god is good as they are evil, interventionist or not interventionist, etc. Therefore, it impossible to make inference as to the intention of god, how to practice devotions to god, etc.
One still could believe in god, but would have to accept that it is irrational and any further beliefs based on this belief are based on an irrational premise: god exists.
So after taking my philosophy class, I better understand that within a valid argument, you cannot have a false premises and true conclusion. I will come up with a counter-argument though. Just give me some time ;)
ReplyDelete