christians - judging

[Aqualung]

And I have never once said that, bro. But in a debate, you can't go inserting "I believe" or "I think" or "IMO" before every single sentence. It gets waaaay too wordy, and makes your position less credible.

 

[pdoel]

Sorry, bro, but it's a debate forum. If you don't want me to debate your views, don't post. Debates are not a place to just hear somebody and then acceeeept them - they're a place to take the view and debate it. You know, debate things in a debate forum.

I hear that. But, keep in mind, NONE Of us has all the answers. You speak as if you know it all, and seem rather rude to anyone who has an idea contrary to yours. I guess it's more the attitude.

You asked a question, I answered. Didn't really feel the need for the nasty attitude in your response.

But since you brought up this is a debate forum. Typically in a debate, each side gets a chance to speak their mind. After that, they each get a second chance to comment on what the opposing side has said.

That is not the case in your "debates". You ask a question, then give your view, then you beat up anyone who has an opposing view. That is NOT a debate. That is you preaching to us what YOU think, without listening to anyone in response.

What is the point of that? That's not a debate at all. It helps to keep an open mind when entering a debate. Definitely stand firm to your side, that's the whole point. But you gotta listen to what the other side says. And it's not real nice to just start attacking people for having a different view. Who's gonna wanna answer your debate questions when they know you are automatically going to tell them they are wrong, you are right, and actually treat them rather nastily in the process?

 

[pdoel]

I doubt this will help any, but here are some guidelines for a "debate"

Rules for Debate:

Terms

1. Argument = a position or statement of opinion to be supported
2. Contention = as part of an argument, a contention is a statement to be proven
3. Affirmative = the positive side (pro) of the debate that supports the resolution statement
4. Negative = the side of the debate that is against the affirmative position (con)
5. Resolution = a specific statement of what is to be proven or refuted; the formal resolution statement begins: "Be it resolved that . . ."
6. Refute = to disprove
7. Rebuttal = questions to challenge points made by opposition
8. Summation = conclusion, the last appeal to the audience/jury
9. Brief = pre-planned statements of position before rebuttal

Protocol

1. Contentions should be stated clearly (perhaps listed) at the onset of the debate.
2. A moderator should serve as a source of appeal for rulings about etiquette or breach of protocol.
3. If the debate is timed, the timekeeper signals the moderator, not the debate members.
4. The moderator only interjects comments or rulings when appealed to by a debate member.
5. Questions or challenges should not be personal or insulting.
6. Initial briefs are to be offered without clash or reference to the statements made by the other side. Clash and refutation occurs only in rebuttal.
7. Each speaker is accountable for team position statements and research; speakers should be able to defend team positions.
8. Order and timing must be agreed upon in advance.
9. The moderator may declare a recess to consult with the instructor if in doubt concerning an appeal.
10. Members may appeal to the moderator for environmental or personal needs.
11. A debate member may appeal for a point of order at any time; the moderator may rule immediately or hold ruling until a later time.
12. Points challenged during rebuttal must be part of the initial brief statements; a member/team may not be challenged for information not discussed.
13. Rebuttal must be posed in question form and not further the brief position.

Strategies

1. If you don't want to debate a point, don't bring it up.
2. Don't get mad—get even through use of logic.
3. Use the moderator to your advantage. Know the rules and insist they be followed.
4. Control the floor when it's your turn. Asking an open question gives the floor to the other side.
5. Negative body language (like rolling the eyes) does not serve to give the judge/audience a positive impression of you.
6. Appear to be listening sympathetically—then devastate the other side with logical attack.
7. Use formal language. Slang, name-calling or cursing makes you appear unintelligent and ill-prepared.
8. Ham it up. Speak with passion and intensity, but not melodrama.
9. Loud is not logic. A quiet voice can command the most attention. An old trick of politicians is to lower the voice so that everyone listens more closely.
10. Choose your experts and sources wisely. One young woman who has had an abortion is not an expert on the subject.
11. Take time to read or quote the literature exactly.
12. Use short anecdotes and famous quotes when possible.
13. Know the position of the other side as well as you know your own. This way you won't be surprised.
14. Study the logical fallacies and hold the opposition accountable for logic blunders.
15. Save your best quote, strongest point and highest-impact emotional appeal for summation and final statement.
16. Don't sound patronizing or condescending. It doesn't come across well.
17. If possible, stand to speak. Walk around courtroom style. It's very impressive and intimidating to the opposition.
18. Don't overuse any single strategy.
19. Don't say "I don't know" or "you're right" without following it up with a redirecting statement such as, "That may be true, but have you ever thought about . . ."

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are errors in thinking and mistakes in logic. A study of samples can assist the debate team member to think more clearly and to see the flaws in the arguments from the opposing side. These fallacies are given different names by different authors, but recognition of the term for the flaw is not important. Detecting the false pattern is. Note that in addition to the ones described below, there are many more types of logical fallacies that may be explored.

1. Post Hoc Fallacy: The assumption that because one thing happens before another, that one thing causes the other. The classic story is of the arrogant rooster who brags to the hens that he crows, causing the morning sun to rise. One old biddy who has been around the barnyard block challenges him. "Stay quiet tomorrow," she taunts, "and see if the morning stays dark." Poor old master rooster has to leave in disgrace the next day when the sun shines bright as ever without his ****-o-doodle-doo.

2. False Authority: A rock star is not an expert on the right kind of car to buy no matter how good he or she may look behind the wheel. Also, a criminal is not an expert on the causes of crime. An expert is one who has broad and creditable knowledge of the subject due to study and credentialed expertise in the field under discussion.

3. Part/Whole: Proving part of an argument wrong does not necessarily discredit the entire list. Proving part of an argument valid does not validate the entire argument. If a woman can run 100 yards in 10 seconds, then she should run 1000 yards in 100 seconds?

4. Either/Or: The assumption is that if one thing is true it makes the other choice false. Usually there is a third option. A man works 65 hours a week, and is too tired to enjoy life. He says he must either work
himself to death or starve.

5. Rationalization: A fuzzy thinker can convince himself that an unpleasant outcome was due to uncontrollable external circumstances: "I rushed the essay and got an F, but it was because that teacher doesn't like me."

6. Red Herring: Originally, a strong-smelling fish was used to fool a blood hound by dragging the herring across the trail of scent. Some debaters can throw such distractions into the discussion and completely disrupt the course of the debate.

7. Improper Date: When generalizations are formed from a faulty understanding that the argument built is flawed. In literature, interpretation must be based on excellent reading comprehension and strong analysis.

 

[Aqualung]

I hear that. But, keep in mind, NONE Of us has all the answers.

So you say, but is that just because you don't have all the answers, and therefore think nobody can?

You speak as if you know it all, and seem rather rude to anyone who has an idea contrary to yours. I guess it's more the attitude.

Well, I appologize for that. I'm just trying to debate effectively, and you learn in like the 3rd grade that if you show doubt when you're debating you'll never win. I came here to debate.

You asked a question, I answered. Didn't really feel the need for the nasty attitude in your response.

It wasn't nasty, it was debative.

That is not the case in your "debates". You ask a question, then give your view, then you beat up anyone who has an opposing view. That is NOT a debate. That is you preaching to us what YOU think, without listening to anyone in response.

I don't "beat down" - I debate. You propse your point, and I attack it, like what happens in a debate. It's a cycle of giving and getting.

It helps to keep an open mind when entering a debate.

No it doesn't! :areyoucra It hurts to have an open mind in a debate. It helps to have an open mind in a discussion, but not a debate. To debate effectively, you've got to at least not show your open mind. Seriously, did you ever take a debate class or at least a speech class in school?

But you gotta listen to what the other side says.

Of course I listen, but I listen for the faults. That's what you do in debates.

And it's not real nice to just start attacking people for having a different view.

It's not attacking to try to prove that they're wrong (the purpose of any debate, after all, is to try to convince the audience that you're right and your oponent is wrong).

Who's gonna wanna answer your debate questions when they know you are automatically going to tell them they are wrong, you are right, and actually treat them rather nastily in the process?

People who like to debate, and understand that a debate forum is for debating.

 

[Aqualung]

5. Questions or challenges should not be personal or insulting.

You made this bold, but I rarely personally insult people, and when I do, it's just to return the insult.

1. If you don't want to debate a point, don't bring it up.

You should look at this one. IF you didn't want to debate judging, and you knew you would get that defensive if I tried to make a "rebuttle" (see that awesome debate jargon?) why did you post it?

 

[pdoel]

So you say, but is that just because you don't have all the answers, and therefore think nobody can?

Anybody who "claims" to have all the answers is not only extremely arrogant, but also delusional.

Well, I appologize for that. I'm just trying to debate effectively, and you learn in like the 3rd grade that if you show doubt when you're debating you'll never win. I came here to debate.

It wasn't nasty, it was debative.

I don't "beat down" - I debate. You propse your point, and I attack it, like what happens in a debate. It's a cycle of giving and getting.

The funny thing is, for someone who likes to debate, this thread actually isn't even a debate. You simply asked a question. As the starter of this thread (or debate, as you want to call it), you should really take on the roll of moderator. You ask, and let people debate it. Maybe add more questions, or ask someone to clarify.

Instead, you ask a question, people answer, then you attack.

Look at threads in the other areas. For instance, there is now a thread out there asking people their favorite breed. If you compared that thread to this, it would be like someone starting a thread asking people what their favorite breed of dog is, then when anyone answers, the original poster reponds telling them no, that breed is stupid.

That's kinda how I see this thread, and many of your threads.

You should read those debate guidelines I posted. Sure, it can show weakness to change your mind during a debate. But it shows more weakness to attack, to talk in circles and to not follow real debate guidelines.

 

[pdoel]

You should look at this one. IF you didn't want to debate judging, and you knew you would get that defensive if I tried to make a "rebuttle" (see that awesome debate jargon?) why did you post it?

Actually, if you really want to debate. How about you re-read my first post in here, then re-read your response. Your response really had nothing to do with my comments. You pretty much just lashed out.

How about debating what I actually said, instead of just saying I'm wrong, and listing comments that had nothing to do with my comments.

 

[Aqualung]

Anybody who "claims" to have all the answers is not only extremely arrogant, but also delusional.

How do you know? Because you think you have the answer to the question "does anybody have all the answers"?

The funny thing is, for someone who likes to debate, this thread actually isn't even a debate. You simply asked a question. As the starter of this thread (or debate, as you want to call it), you should really take on the roll of moderator. You ask, and let people debate it. Maybe add more questions, or ask someone to clarify.

I asked a question, and then put it in the debate section, because then the people that answered it could debate with me.

Instead, you ask a question, people answer, then you attack.

I don't "attack" - I debate.

Look at threads in the other areas. For instance, there is now a thread out there asking people their favorite breed.

In the discussion forums.

If you compared that thread to this, it would be like someone starting a thread asking people what their favorite breed of dog is, then when anyone answers, the original poster reponds telling them no, that breed is stupid.

If they put it in the debate forum, I would expect them to say something similar, except actually offer reasons why the other person was wrong. Debate forums aren't for civil discussion. They're for debate.

You should read those debate guidelines I posted. Sure, it can show weakness to change your mind during a debate. But it shows more weakness to attack, to talk in circles and to not follow real debate guidelines.

I did read your suggestions. I'm not attacking. I'm debating. I'm taking their PoV and trying to show logically why I think it's wrong.

BTW: If once you could actually show me that I was talking in circles, instead of just going off on tangents like what seems to happen every time you "refute" a point I make, it might lend a little bit more credibility to your side. At least I try to back up my claims. You don't even do that.

 

[Aqualung]

Actually, if you really want to debate. How about you re-read my first post in here, then re-read your response. Your response really had nothing to do with my comments. You pretty much just lashed out.

How about debating what I actually said, instead of just saying I'm wrong, and listing comments that had nothing to do with my comments.

Because that list is not wrong. You just posted an essentially pointless list, since you didn't even bother to tie it in to what you were saying. In fact, you said "I doubt this will help any." It certainly doesn't help any when you just leave it dangle there. You posted something, but didn't tell why it was relevant at all, let alone how it was relevant to me. And then you expect me to take a completely irrelevant post, and somehow reply in a relevant manner?!

 

[pdoel]

How do you know? Because you think you have the answer to the question "does anybody have all the answers"?

Jesus taught humility. Jesus taught that he too had Sin, and that even he wasn't perfect.

Jesus was a smart man. You could learn a lot from him.

Any more comments you want to make on the contrary, stating you think you know it all, will only weaken your arguments.

 

[Aqualung]

Jesus taught humility. Jesus taught that he too had Sin, and that even he wasn't perfect.

Jesus taught humility. You can know everything and still be humble. Jesus knew absolutely everything except for one thing, and he was a very humble man. That's not very good proof.

Any more comments you want to make on the contrary, stating you think you know it all, will only weaken your arguments.

I never stated I thought I knew it all. In fact, I know very little. I just stated that it hasty for you to state that nobody knew it all, especially since you have not backed that up yet.

 

[pdoel]

I never stated I thought I knew it all. In fact, I know very little. I just stated that it hasty for you to state that nobody knew it all, especially since you have not backed that up yet.

Look at these debate threads. Look at experts in the fields of Religion and Science who continuelly make new discoveries, who continue to search for answers.

Do you REALLY think anybody on this planet has all the answers? Is it your stance that there are people here who are 100% right on everything? That there are people who know the meaning to life? Who know for a FACT that God exists, who have undeniable proof of what exactly it is that God expects from each and every single one of us?

If so, please give me some links to these people. The whole world is waiting on pins and needles for this information.

 

[Aqualung]

Look at these debate threads. Look at experts in the fields of Religion and Science who continuelly make new discoveries, who continue to search for answers.

Do you REALLY think anybody on this planet has all the answers? Is it your stance that there are people here who are 100% right on everything? That there are people who know the meaning to life? Who know for a FACT that God exists, who have undeniable proof of what exactly it is that God expects from each and every single one of us?

If so, please give me some links to these people. The whole world is waiting on pins and needles for this information.

That's not my stance at all. I'm just wondering where your proof that nobody knows everything comes from. Is it based on circumstantial evidence like what you just stated? Or do you actually know it?

If I don't know everything, does that mean I know nothing? Is it possible that even if one does not know everything, that they know more than you?

pdoel, books, chapters and verses, please.

 

[pdoel]

If I don't know everything, does that mean I know nothing? Is it possible that even if one does not know everything, that they know more than you?

Where did I say that if you don't know everything, then you must know nothing?

Need I once again, remind you to go re-read your "critical reading" thread?

My point was, and still is, that NONE of us have all the answer. We've ALL interpreted scripture differently. There are tons of Christians on these boards, and we all have different views. We've all allowed our faith to form our views on religion, God's laws, etc.

With that in mind, what is the point of judging? The only judgement that matters is that of God's come judgement day. I realize that my ideas on religion may be WAY off. I have no idea. My faith has helped me form these ideas, and I feel very strongly in my heart that I'm on the right track. But I know many others feel the same way. We can't all be right.

So, I see no point in judging someone else. It will do neither of us any good. The only judgement that will matters is the ones we must answer to come judgement day.

We can sit around and point fingers all day long, but it'll mean nothing come the day the Lord judges us.

 

[pdoel]

Yes indeed, pdoel. Books, chapters and verses, please.

Enjoy!

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heave

25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

3Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

 

[Aqualung]

None of these say that he sinned.

 

[Aqualung]

Where did I say that if you don't know everything, then you must know nothing?

Everytime I mention knowledge of something you write it off because "nobody knows everything." Well, what if I do know at least something that you don't? What makes you so sure that I don't know the answer? The fact that you don't?

With that in mind, what is the point of judging?

Because you have to find out what sin is. Sure, it might be your own interpretation of what a sin is (your own judgement, if you will), but you can't even interpret what a sin is without judging.

The only judgement that matters is that of God's come judgement day.

I disagree. I think he really wants us to make judgements about things, like the scriptures, so we can try to follow it as best as we can. How can we follow the scriptures if we don't make some type of judgement about what the scriptures mean?

We can sit around and point fingers all day long, but it'll mean nothing come the day the Lord judges us.

Judging is NOT pointing fingers. Judging (at least the kind I do) is non specific about people, situations, etc.

 

[pdoel]

None of these say that he sinned.

Well, I guess that's implied by his life and death. All men have sin. Jesus died on the cross to save us from Sin. He descended into Hell. On the third day, he rose again from the dead.

He descended into Hell because he, like all men, had sin. God forgave him, and thus, forgave us all of our sin.

See how that works?

 

[pdoel]

Everytime I mention knowledge of something you write it off because "nobody knows everything." Well, what if I do know at least something that you don't? What makes you so sure that I don't know the answer? The fact that you don't?

Please point to me where I every commented on you saying anything about knowledge. The discussion here is about judgement. I am saying that none of us have all the answers, therefore, I see no reason why to pass judgement on others. Especially when there's a chance our ideas of "truths" could very well be different than the person we are judging, as well as different from that of God's truth.

I'm actually trying to keep this on the debate YOU started. You may very well know things I don't, and I may very well know things that you don't. My point is, I see no reason to judge each other based on things we both "think" we know. If you want to argue about things we know or don't know, that's for another debate.

YOU started a debate on what is judging, and whether or not it is ok to judge. So, if you want to discuss things such as "who has all the answers", maybe start another debate. Otherwise, don't get all upset when people ask the questions of your original debate.

 

[Aqualung]

Well, I guess that's implied by his life and death. All men have sin. Jesus died on the cross to save us from Sin. He descended into Hell. On the third day, he rose again from the dead.

He descended into Hell because he, like all men, had sin. God forgave him, and thus, forgave us all of our sin.

See how that works?

He descended into "hell" to preach the gospel to those who had not heard it.