Last Sunday, I was talking with some other girls when Emily made a point that, frankly, I hadn't thought of before: what is the point of debating a point :-) when
a) you have little to no hope of convincing the other person of your viewpoint
b) the topic is not essential
c) the person you are debating with shares your viewpoint to begin with?
It would seem that such debates are a waste of time. However, I disagree (feel free to challenge me on the subject!) for these reasons, in no particular order:
1) It's fun! :-)
2) Debates often send me running back to the Word to support my points-which is, of course, excellent!
3) Debates sharpen mental faculties and encourage the development of better reasoning skills.
4) Debates are excellent practice for speaking to unbelievers. In this world of skepticism, often logical, theoretical or scientific conundrums stand in the way of the Gospel. Providing reasonable arguments to counter these problems can pave the way for further truth.
5) Debates help me solidify my worldview and viewpoint - not only the "what" of my beliefs, but the "why" - and (albeit very occasionally :-) ) change my thoughts on specific topics.
As I said, feel free to present counter-arguments (or supporting points I haven't thought of!) - and of course, feel free to add to our debate over absolute truth (which, as I'm sure you know by now, is located in the left sidebar under pending discussions :-). But again-no pressure! Just "at your pleasure" :-).)
7 comments:
No, Cara, you are right 100%!! Debate is healthy and it sharpens our minds. It helps solidify what we believe, and as you said, keeps us in the Word. It is a huge educational tool, and I also find it very fun.
Here are my replies to Emily:
a) It's not about convincing the other person (it's not an /argument/.) It's about presenting your ideas in a clear and convincing way. Winning a debate doesn't mean you convince the other person. Winning a debate mean that you debated WELL. Courteously, but also deliberately and to perfection. To win you must be intelligent about your subject, and your plan and delivery must be flawless. You must be able to predict the other person's moves and plan for them. It's an art, really.
b)most of the time, the topic is very important, that is, if it's a good debate. /Arguments/ are usually about things that don't matter. Debates are usually about legitimate issues. (Notice that there is a HUGE difference between argument and debate. Many people get the confused, and turn a debate into something personal, which makes it an argument. This is unprofessional and sloppy.) But, again, it's not about the subject, it's about how well you debate.
c) This may be the case right now, but the WHOLE rest of your life you will encounter millions of people who don't share your viewpoint. Today you are only preparing for that. You are going to experience legitimate, intelligent points made by unbelievers, and you must be able to counter them with alacrity. Your faith WILL be challenged, and you need to be able to have the tenacity (from God), to endure the storm.
Haha, that was long. But I suppose I feel strongly about it :D.
I agree with you and josiah. :) You guys have a couple of really good points!
I am not a debating type of girl, mostly because my thoughts don't come together very quickly when I am in a debate and i can never think of the right words. I guess practice would help that, haha. :)
But debates are totally NOT a waste of time, in my opinion. :)
Indeed, practice would help. :-) And that is why I like written debates-I think slowly and carefully too. But I have time to mull things over to my satisfaction when debating in print-which is exactly why I'm doing that here!
Argh! You beat me to some of my points, Josiah. Serves me right for not replying sooner. :)
Ah, well, I shall get some of the other points I had. :)
a) Not only does debate strengthen the debater him/herself, as Cara stated above, but think about this(and this also a partial reply to Emily's point): you may not see a change in the other person's viewpoint. But when does this ever mean that none has been made? If we were to not debate simply because no response was apparent, it would be the same as to stop attempting to share the gospel unless the Spirit gives some amazing revival. Unless they are very humble, not many people will admit you to be right in your presence. But we should not stop debating just for that; after all, we may change their beliefs to ours, or at least be the catalyst for that change. So my point here is that debate doesn't just help the debater, it is useful to the "debated" as well.
b) Not only may you affect their thought, you also bring out further truth. As they are forced to answer "why" they believe what they do, more truth is revealed. Also, you draw out the person themselves, which *can* lead to a better relationship overall, as you learn more of how they think and act. So I enjoy it for the truth revealed, both of the person and their beliefs.
And...all my other points were covered--you nailed them straight on, Cara. =)
An amusing note: Cara, you said "It would seem that such debates are a waste of time. However, I disagree (feel free to challenge me on the subject!) Haha, if they disagreed with you, they would not challenge you--it would be a waste of time. If they agreed, they would not challenge you--they have nothing against you. Just thought that was funny. =) However, although I agree, I would be willing to challenge that for the sake of debate. But you may have to wait a bit while I think of an argument. =)
--Josiah C.
That was funny, Josiah (C)-thanks for sharing! I suppose I was hoping that I was reasonable enough (given that I "(albeit very occasionally) change my thoughts on specific topics") that any who disagreed might count me worthy of their argumentative skills :-), in hopes of persuading me to their opinion.
Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, our Absolute Truth debate is now available on another page for even easier location! Just check out "forums"!
You were plenty reasonable--just the sentence you used had a funny conclusion if you followed it to its logical end. :)
I noticed the change of area for the forum; that was a nice touch, and good for organization. :) *sigh* But although you have done great by re-posting the debate, and that in a great way that we all can debate in easily...no one has added to our arguments. :(
Anyway, as I stated in my previous comment, I shall now attempt to challenge the merits of debate. So:
a) It closes off "gates". By this I mean: people are inherently sinful. And being sinful, believe that they are right, and even when proved wrong, will stubbornly insist on their own way. So when I debate people, the moment I attempt to prove my point, they will close off their mental "gate" and stop listening and learning. Instead, it becomes an argument. You cannot reach people by arguments, as they are not prepared to listen--they naturally raise barriers when a confrontation arises.
b) Rather than being helpful, you are often considered to just be "argumentative". A personal story here: when Dad was preparing to go to Africa, the missionary translating group he worked with tended to look at potential missionaries through psychological studies rather than the Bible. Dad corrected them on this lack of sound doctrinal action, however, instead of being considering him a helpful man, they almost did not let him into the mission field on account of being "too argumentative". Whether or not you are right, if you attempt to convince people via debate, it is possible that they will dismiss you as "argumentative", or "uncooperative".
c) Those that are better at debate will have an advantage over those who do not do it as much. In this, my point is: whether or not they are right, the skilled debater has a higher chance of "winning" the debate; in other words, making further arguments against theirs seem foolish or meaningless. So the truth may be suppressed in uneven fields of debate, due to one person's better ability to argue.
Anyway, just as if this was not clear...this is not the side I hold, so forgive me if I have misrepresented this side of the argument, or gave it a weaker argument than could be told. But I do invite debate. :)
--Josiah C.
c) Interesting initial comment: I was just refreshing on the Scopes vs. State of Tennessee case (i.e. "monkey trial") because I was reading about William Jennings Bryan. Unfortunately, although Bryan certainly had the stronger position (and actually had been a good debater), Clarence Darrow (the ACLU-backed attorney in charge of the case) was able to paint him into a corner and cause him to look foolish, losing face before all of America on behalf of the entire conservative/fundamentalist movement. Oh, the dangers of being faced by a better debater!
But I still think the benefits outweigh the dangers :-)!
Post a Comment