- The goal in all cases is to seek the truth, not to defend one's existing opinion.
- When refuting a position you disagree with, do your best to describe it in its best light, so that someone who holds this position could say "yes, that's what I think."
- When a statement can be interpreted more than one way, start by assuming the most charitable interpretation. If you are unsure, ask - remember, this is a dialogue.
- Avoid Ad Hominem attacks which undermine the credibility of the author rather than addressing his or her arguments.
- Avoid using an extreme example to discredit anyone of similar views. There are crazy and stupid people in every camp. It is better to respond to the best, most intelligent, thoughtful and nuanced representative of a viewpoint, rather than the crudest.
Draft set of principles
Draft set of principles
Re: Draft set of principles
Just some random thoughts:
No matter how like the truth some evil thing appears, the truth cannot move to distinguish itself. That's what makes it the truth. Many roads of truth will run along the edge of treachery. The temptation is to veer off the path because you do not like where it is going but this does not make it untrue.
Often we are not wrong and sometimes not even in disagreement but poor articulation/wording/framing can make it seem so. Asking for clarification and paying special attention to how someone has actually worded things goes a long way toward understanding.
Often we are wrong. The whole point of arguing is to find where we are wrong (and we hope it is the other person). If they are wrong, we hope that they change their position. So, we should not hold someone to defend a position they no longer agree with, trying to highlight their error. It's ok to change your mind.
No matter how like the truth some evil thing appears, the truth cannot move to distinguish itself. That's what makes it the truth. Many roads of truth will run along the edge of treachery. The temptation is to veer off the path because you do not like where it is going but this does not make it untrue.
Often we are not wrong and sometimes not even in disagreement but poor articulation/wording/framing can make it seem so. Asking for clarification and paying special attention to how someone has actually worded things goes a long way toward understanding.
Often we are wrong. The whole point of arguing is to find where we are wrong (and we hope it is the other person). If they are wrong, we hope that they change their position. So, we should not hold someone to defend a position they no longer agree with, trying to highlight their error. It's ok to change your mind.
Re: Draft set of principles
Those random thoughts, while not directly contributing to "rules of debate," are nonetheless interesting.
There can be situations in which it takes a very long time to get to the truth - maybe generations. Dialogue between different groups may need to go on without anyone changing their opinion within the lifetime of those in the dialogue. I'm thinking particularly of religious disagreement, but political disagreement can be like this too.
In these cases, what matters is to build a platform of good communication. We do this by seeking to understand the other position as best we possibly can. This involves asking lots of questions, and not being too polite to challenge what seem like weak points. But this can be done in a charitable attitude rather than as a put-down.
It always rings warning bells when someone considers their position final. It means that they are no longer open to listening to other viewpoints that might challenge and change their position. It means they think "nothing can ever change my mind about this."
There can be situations in which it takes a very long time to get to the truth - maybe generations. Dialogue between different groups may need to go on without anyone changing their opinion within the lifetime of those in the dialogue. I'm thinking particularly of religious disagreement, but political disagreement can be like this too.
In these cases, what matters is to build a platform of good communication. We do this by seeking to understand the other position as best we possibly can. This involves asking lots of questions, and not being too polite to challenge what seem like weak points. But this can be done in a charitable attitude rather than as a put-down.
It always rings warning bells when someone considers their position final. It means that they are no longer open to listening to other viewpoints that might challenge and change their position. It means they think "nothing can ever change my mind about this."