Honest Debate

[Kishkumen]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

So true.

[Res Ipsa]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

That’s not what the term implies to me. In high school and college debates, I believe the sides are chosen by the flip of a coin. I think it would be informative to have critics argue on behalf of the LDS position and vice versa. Making the best arguments you can in support of a position you are opposed to is a very informative exercise.

I think it’s largely a matter of taste. If you prefer discussions, cool. If someone prefers debates, or even wants to experiment with debating, cool. in my opinion, debates don’t have to involve fixed, rigid positions. They are more interesting when they identify points of agreement and points of departure and then explore the arguments in depth. I think the advantage of a debate is focused examination of issues and arguments. On the other hand, discussion is something most people are comfortable with.

[drumdude]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

That’s not what the term implies to me. In high school and college debates, I believe the sides are chosen by the flip of a coin. I think it would be informative to have critics argue on behalf of the LDS position and vice versa. Making the best arguments you can in support of a position you are opposed to is a very informative exercise.

I think it’s largely a matter of taste. If you prefer discussions, cool. If someone prefers debates, or even wants to experiment with debating, cool. in my opinion, debates don’t have to involve fixed, rigid positions. They are more interesting when they identify points of agreement and points of departure and then explore the arguments in depth. I think the advantage of a debate is focused examination of issues and arguments. On the other hand, discussion is something most people are comfortable with.

I would love some debates here where people flip coins and take the devil’s advocate position. I do enjoy those a lot.

[Res Ipsa]

It is surprisingly hard to argue for a proposition one disagrees with without arguing a caricature of the position. I think it’s a great exercise.

[honorentheos]

It is surprisingly hard to argue for a proposition one disagrees with without arguing a caricature of the position. I think it’s a great exercise.

Agreed. Some years back when the board allowed sock puppets there were a few attempts to do this. EA had at least one over at the MDB/FAIR board. I tried my hand briefly. Part of the problem, though, is folks see the other side as a caricature as well so there isn't a good way to know if the presentation is effective or just playing into the assumptions of the other side. And to be perfectly honest, the points between genuine argument and "I don't need to know the answer to that in this life for salvation so I'll have to trust that my spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the gospel is of God" were far fewer than I had expected. It was easy to fall back on rhetoric. Far more difficult to actually engage in a way that advanced the discussion.

[honorentheos]

As to the main topic, I agree with the point healthy debate requires good faith and trust to the extent both parties have to feel they are able to present their views without the house tipping the balance. But I disagree that message boards make poor places for debate because I believe in human psychology. The only people genuinely persuadable are typically those without much of an opinion to begin with. So informed debate almost always has to be between two parties who are largely unpersuadable. The fruit of healthy debate isn't conversion of an opponent. The fruit is the exposure of the issues that comes from two sides engaging in good faith to expose the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument.

[Some Schmo]

That’s not what the term implies to me. In high school and college debates, I believe the sides are chosen by the flip of a coin. I think it would be informative to have critics argue on behalf of the LDS position and vice versa. Making the best arguments you can in support of a position you are opposed to is a very informative exercise.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's been pointed out many times that you're unlikely to make a good case against an idea if you can't explain the ideas that support it.

The best debaters I've seen are able to restate the opposition's position and get buy in from their opposition before beginning to dismantle it.

I think it’s largely a matter of taste. If you prefer discussions, cool. If someone prefers debates, or even wants to experiment with debating, cool. in my opinion, debates don’t have to involve fixed, rigid positions. They are more interesting when they identify points of agreement and points of departure and then explore the arguments in depth. I think the advantage of a debate is focused examination of issues and arguments.

This is what I think of when I consider a "real" debate. To me, it's like scientists attempting to come up with the best explanation for something by peer review, not a contest to see who discovers the real answer.

[Res Ipsa]

That’s not what the term implies to me. In high school and college debates, I believe the sides are chosen by the flip of a coin. I think it would be informative to have critics argue on behalf of the LDS position and vice versa. Making the best arguments you can in support of a position you are opposed to is a very informative exercise.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's been pointed out many times that you're unlikely to make a good case against an idea if you can't explain the ideas that support it.

The best debaters I've seen are able to restate the opposition's position and get buy in from their opposition before beginning to dismantle it.

I think it’s largely a matter of taste. If you prefer discussions, cool. If someone prefers debates, or even wants to experiment with debating, cool. in my opinion, debates don’t have to involve fixed, rigid positions. They are more interesting when they identify points of agreement and points of departure and then explore the arguments in depth. I think the advantage of a debate is focused examination of issues and arguments.

This is what I think of when I consider a "real" debate. To me, it's like scientists attempting to come up with the best explanation for something by peer review, not a contest to see who discovers the real answer.

In traditional style debates, the audience votes on a winner. I think not having a winner is more conducive to the results you describe. In my perfect world, the debates and onlookers would soaps the various arguments. What worked. What didn’t work. What issues were overlooked.

[Some Schmo]

As to the main topic, I agree with the point healthy debate requires good faith and trust to the extent both parties have to feel they are able to present their views without the house tipping the balance. But I disagree that message boards make poor places for debate because I believe in human psychology. The only people genuinely persuadable are typically those without much of an opinion to begin with. So informed debate almost always has to be between two parties who are largely unpersuadable. The fruit of healthy debate isn't conversion of an opponent. The fruit is the exposure of the issues that comes from two sides engaging in good faith to expose the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument.

That's a fair point.

And if people are willing to engage, it can certainly be entertaining for others.

It's a little like pro football. I love to watch it, but you'll never catch me stepping out onto the field.

[Res Ipsa]

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

So true.

I wasn’t here when Peterson et al hung out here. The little I have read looks more like a scrum than a debate.

There are people that I think could have a good, substantive debate across the LDS-critic divide, but the numbers are few. Mutual respect required.