On Debating [轉貼 and abridged by 桃幹仙] 。

桃花仙: where is the beef?
桃根仙: 開始找貼。
桃幹仙: abridge the paper。
桃枝仙: endorse it.
桃葉仙: concur it。
桃實仙: 發貼。

If we don\'t want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with alternative points of view.

One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.

Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as rednecks or liberals and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, According to Einstein... is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, Most biologists believe... is not based on objective evidence. Saying, The Bible says... is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.

Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person\'s theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style.

Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn\'t been slanted to agree with that publication\'s political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

Understand your opponents\' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

Happy debating…