On the Limited Value of Moderated Debates

Moderated Debate & Artificial Discursive Constraints

You have heard it said that moderated public debates are the best means of demonstrating the truth of one’s doctrinal position. But is that really the case? I don’t think so. Let me explain why.

Debates Artificially Limit What Constitutes Evidence for One’s Doctrine

If you listen to any number of debates on, say, the doctrine of unconditional election, you are 9 times out of 10 able to determine who is going to use what text, and how they are going to use it. In part, this is to be expected, seeing as the subject matter is very specific. As a narrowly defined subject of debate, it follows that what constitutes evidence in defense of, or attack on, one’s view of that subject is going to be the same across the board, in some respects.

Artificial limitations, then, are limitations that are not necessitated by the subject itself. These limitations serve to more narrowly constrain what constitutes evidence for one’s doctrine, but, more problematically, also rule out legitimate forms of evidence that could establish one’s position (or refute the position of his opponent). This results in others perceiving a debater’s doctrine to have been established when he has presented evidence meeting the artificial constraints superimposed upon the subject matter under consideration.

Debates Artificially Limit the Acceptable Arguments in Defense of One’s Doctrine

Given that the lines of evidence are more narrowly drawn, this likewise limits the kinds of arguments one can present in defense of one’s doctrine. Consequently, if one has strong arguments in defense of his doctrine he may not be able to present them. And if he is not able to present them, then his position will have a weak defense in the minds of his listeners, including his debate opponent. This will misrepresent the doctrine’s defensibility, leading listeners to think that the only arguments it has in its defense are unsound.

Debaters are Artificially Constrained by Social Expectations

The social expectations that constrain a debater cover, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Speakers confident of the truth of their doctrine will speak with confidence in any given
social event concerning their doctrine.

b. Better packaged – i.e. concise and simplistic – arguments are better – i.e. sound – arguments.

c. Complex arguments are “off-topic,” evidence that a speaker is “intellectualizing” what he knows is indefensible.

d. Cross examination lays all of one’s cards out on the table.

Thus –

a.’ The debater who appears to lack confidence is interpreted to lack confidence in his doctrine’s truth. .

b.’ The debater who presents longer and more elaborate arguments is interpreted to have a weaker case (i.e. he is thought to be making his argument more complex to cover its lack of substance)

c.’ The debater who presents complex arguments, integrating sub-arguments inherent to the main topic are interpreted as being off-topic.

d.’ The debater cannot clarify problematic questions (e.g. leading and “complex” questions), and is therefore either answers unfair questions, appearing incorrect, or does not answer such questions, appearing therefore to be unable to answer in defense of his doctrine.

The Superiority of Dialogue

Dialogue is superior to moderate debate because it is not hamstrung by the artificial discursive constraints mentioned above. Knowledgeable interlocutors can adapt to one another’s presentations, non-fallaciously, in order to address their opposition’s claims and arguments. This allows for real time engagement when new or previously unheard arguments and evidence are brought forward by either interlocutor. This would eliminate the script-like nature of argumentation found in debates, allowing for one to actually evaluate his opponent’s position as his opponent has presented it.

As for personalities, it seems to be the case that without the aforementioned artificial discursive constraints placed upon them, interlocutors who are deceptive, irrational, sinfully aggressive, ignorant, etc will seemingly be a little easier to spot, since the format gives them enough of a wide berth to establish their doctrines as true in a rationally coherent, honest, charitable, and knowledgeable manner, but they have clearly chosen to not so do.

The Written Word is Best

Once a text is written, its non-omnipresent & non-omniscient author cannot nudge his readers to infer this or that conclusion by his intonation, gesticulations, dress, volume, and so on. The reader is left to decide, on the basis of the text, whether or not the author’s argumentation is sound. This stands in sharp contrast to moderated debates and non-debate dialogues, for in these latter formats mentioned one’s position can be changed, modified, denied, etc within the very contexts in which they are uttered. So while it is true that a dialogue is more open and, therefore, valuable as a real-life engagement with one’s opponents views that shed new light on what constitutes evidence in favor of one’s doctrine, it is likewise true that it is inferior to written exchanges.

The written word is best because it forces the reader to examine the arguments presented, not the personality behind the arguments presented.

Don’t Get Me Wrong

I like moderated debates. I enjoy the sport of it all. But that’s the reason why I can’t say that it is a superior means of concluding that either one or another doctrine has good evidential and argumentative support, let along concluding that one or another doctrine is true.

Moreover, I think moderated debates can serve the function of introducing a doctrine to the general public. Within academic contexts the citation of proponents of one’s doctrine can drive listeners to study the doctrine in question more deeply and, ultimately, come to their own conclusions. Moderated debate also brings abstruse doctrines to a level most people can understand, and this useful for many people.

If we are seeking to come to a conclusion about whether or not a doctrine is biblical, I think written exchanges are superior.

Just my 2¢.

Soli Deo Gloria

What is a “Philosophical” Argument?

The “philosophical argument” retort used by heretics is devoid of substance, a loaded assertion meant to draw attention away from one’s opponent’s failure to prove their doctrine from the Scriptures.

A : A

Avoiding the Inexorable Consequences of One’s Beliefs

Since the debate a few weeks ago, I’ve been talking to annihilationists about the foundations on which they build their doctrine. The result has not been very fruitful, as there has been much misunderstanding from the annihilationist camp about the various critiques I have been offering. In the course of our interactions, the accusation arose that we (myself and Michael Burgos from grassrootsapologetics.org) were making “philosophical” arguments and not “Biblical” arguments. The statement bugged me because it is, well, worthless in terms of refuting any singular point that one’s opponent raises in a given discussion. What is worse, however, is the fact that the assertion wrongly identifies logic as philosophy, which are two different things.  Logic is the science of necessary inference; philosophy is a branch of study that involves the study of knowledge (i.e. epistemology), the study of first principles (i.e. metaphysics)…

View original post 397 more words