Debate Tip #7: Sum It Up

I think that one of the most frustrating things about any communication is when it appears that the person you are talking to does not have a clue of what you just said.  At the same level of annoyance is when that person does not appear to even have considered what you've said.  It is a fundamental sign of respect to illustrate that you have understood what you have been told and considered it, even if you disagree with it.

Show that respect.  The more respect you provide your opponent, the more likely they are to show respect to you, and actually consider what you are saying.

So, when your opponent states a position one way or another, take a moment to summarize what your opponent just said in the reply.  This helps to ensure that you actually know what your opponent meant, because he or she will have the chance to correct you.  It also demonstrates to them that you have actually considered their words.

Then proceed to rip their position to shreds with countering facts... doing so in a respectful manner, of course.  ;-)

You don't have to do this with every reply.  Just do so as it feels necessary.  Once you have done this on your own two or three times, you will be in a better position to ask them to do the same for you, if they haven't already picked up the trend of doing so.

If they appear to be completely ignoring your points, just kindly say something like "I am not sure that you fully understand my position.  Would you mind summarizing my point(s) and elaborating on why you object to them?"  Through this act, they will be forced to reconsider your position, or, alternately, you will be able to see where their misunderstanding/mental impediment is in understanding you.

Debate Tip #6: Choose Wisely

The wise prevail through great power,
    and those who have knowledge muster their strength.
Surely you need guidance to wage war,
    and victory is won through many advisers. NIV Proverbs 24:5-6

In any one theological debate that you've got the chance to effectively make only one or two points which will leave any kind of lasting impact.  Make that impact matter.  At least, do so whenever you can.  I know, you can't always choose the debate topic, but sometimes you can steer the conversation to something of more substance.

Don't debate a simple Scriptural contradiction.  Nearly every time, those contradictions can be rationalized away.  And if they can't, they'll just be ignored.

I advise against a debate about evolution (unless you're trying to defend teaching it in school!).  For faithful believers who don't believe in evolution, their belief in the Bible is founded on other stuff.  In other words, they believe in Creationism because it aligns with the Bible, not the other way around.  They will surely take God's word over yours!

For the same reason as for evolution, I would advise not debating about whether or not a god exists in general, because their god is not a god, but rather the God.

It comes down to this:  It doesn't matter if evolution is true or if a god exists.  It does matter if the Bible is true and if God exists.  At least, that is the perspective of those who put their faith in that least-read-best-selling Book.

So I would advise that, if you can, you center the debate around God and the Bible.  Not loosely though.  Feel out your opponent.  Get a sense of their core beliefs.  Then pick one or two and demonstrate to them how God or the Bible is not what they perceive it to be on those specific points.  Let other "advisers" argue other points to them, or simply save them for a later debate.

Of course, that does require some strength in Scriptures to do so, but I've made that a little easier for you.  ;-)

Maybe you, like most Christians ;-), have no interest in deeply studying Scripture, but you love evolution or the philosophical realm of knowing how to know if a god exists or doesn't.  That's fine.  Argue your strengths.  But know that 1) your impact on their faith is likely limited, and 2) a similar strategy of trying to find the core for their beliefs, and addressing them specifically, will probably be the most effective strategy as well.

At least, that is my perspective based on my experience in deconversion.  Your mileage may vary.

Debate Tip #5: It's Not About the Facts

How much better to get wisdom than gold,
    to get insight rather than silver! NIV Proverbs 16:16

Facts are critical to developing a right understanding of the world around us, but they don't always have much to do with our beliefs.  That is especially true with complex systems of belief such as religious faith.

Of course, that makes it rather difficult to have a meaningful, fact-based debate!

Beliefs serve various purposes, as well as truly creating a world view, even if that world view is false!.

Beliefs may comfort in moments of distress, provide a fundamental aspect of identity, provide direction and hope for the future, etc.

The world view constructed by beliefs may see the world as something rightfully under the dominion of man, conjure up images of invisible forces at work behind the scenes, paint any opposing voice as an instrument of Satan, etc.

So when you are in a debate, you should be sensitive to clues in your opponent's language which give away how their beliefs may be meeting deep-seated needs that they have, and how their world view is preventing them from seeing the world as it really is.  This is their foundation.

If you happen to detect aspects of their foundation, it is probably best to discontinue the debate on whatever you were talking about, and instead probe those beliefs more deeply.  Change is most probable when those foundational beliefs are affected.  On the other hand, correcting some other errant ancillary belief is not likely to alter their perspective much at all.

For example, though not engaged in a real debate, a recent commenter on the My Angle post by the name "BB" made this comment (edited for clarity):

"Atheists believe that life is simply random, and completely up to chance... If this is their truth, I pose the question; what's the meaning and purpose in life?"

If you see a comment like this, where there is a fundamental misunderstanding of life, either of the theist or atheist perspective, stop the debate about whatever topic and center on this misunderstanding.  In this case, BB misunderstood what actually provides meaning and purpose in life, which is a pretty big gaff!

Gently, but firmly, enlighten your opponent on a different perspective; you know, like the perspective that actually matches reality!  ;-)  The better they can understand the viewpoints of other people, the more likely you are going to be successful in changing their minds in the long run.  So it is worth ditching everything else in the debate just to show them that their foundational thinking is build on sand.  :-)

Debate Tip #4: Ignore Most of It

It is not good to eat too much honey,
    nor is it honorable to search out matters that are too deep. NIV Proverbs 25:27

Based on my experience, I think that there is an inverse relationship of how many topics you cover in a debate to its effectiveness of changing minds.  That seems counter-intuitive, I know.  You would think/hope that you could just dump out the evidence, have your opponent add it all up, and then come to the obviously natural conclusion that they've been wrong the whole time!  But, no, it doesn't work that way.

It can work that way for books, blogs, YouTube, etc., because they have all the time in the world to consider the data.  But when you are in a debate, you are in a discussion.  Dialog is key, and communication is essential, so you must press on without time for lengthy consideration.  Given that you and your opponent will be coming from completely different world views, true communication is going to be difficult, because you will use your words differently.

So keep it simple.  Focus on one or two points, or certainly no more than three.  Inevitably in defense of a position, other points will emerge which are worthy of their own exploration, but don't*.  The more you meander around, the more you just waste your time, because there is a good chance you are just talking past one another.

Instead, center on one or two points, and drive those through until you are absolutely sure that your opponent understands what you saying, even if they still disagree.  In fact, expect them to still disagree with you.  As mentioned in Tip #1, just because they disagree with you then, doesn't mean that there is no hope of them later coming around.

If your opponent protests, saying that you are ignoring his or her other arguments, just reply something to the effect that, while you are looking forward to discussing those points with them, you want to nail down the one or two points first before continuing on to others.

---

* There is an appropriate time to meander off topic, and we'll discuss that in the next Debate Tip.

Debate Tip #3: Wear Teflon Underwear

A person’s wisdom yields patience;
    it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense. NIV Proverbs 19:11

It's going to happen.  Some of your opponents will attack you personally, ad hominem style, or even just basic name calling. In one debate I had recently, it seemed like the guy on the other end had a whole list of pejorative terms that he was working into the argument, one by one, just to get a reaction.

Whatever you do, don't react in kind.  Just let that garbage talk slide right off you, like you've got on Teflon tightie whities.

I've messed up a number of debates this way.  My opponent would fire a shot, and I instinctively thought of further belittling counter, and shot right back.  And it felt gooood!  And then he fired another shot with his next counter, so I did the same.  Wash.  Rinse.  Repeat.  The problem was that the debate was unproductive.  By the end, I could tell I had done little more that stroke my own ego, while having him think much less of me... not that he had admired me before!

I've come to realize that I need to stay focused on the goal.  The goal is not to "win" in the theological equivalent to an "yo momma" insult contest.  The goal is to change minds.  Having your opponent think that you are a jerk is probably just reinforcing their same misunderstanding that they've already had about those without faith.

So when your opponent uses that kind of language, just ignore it.  Just let it go.  You'll actually feel better about it in the long run, and you may just have influence someone by changing their perception about atheists, if not about the debate topic.

Debate Tip #2: Be Kind of Like Jesus

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
    and the Lord will reward you. NIV Proverbs 25:21-22

Theological debates inherently render defensive postures.  Walls come up.  Ears shut down.

By engaging in a debate, in many ways you are asking your opposition to put on full display their most cherished and private beliefs.  Furthermore, you're prodding them to defend those beliefs.

Not very many people desire the truth more than they desire being right, although many people are deceived that true and right are one and the same.

So you've got your opposition in a vulnerable position, and they will naturally coil up like an armadillo to protect themselves.  Your goal should be to get them to relax their guard as much as possible, because that is your best chance of making an impact.

Sure, there are circumstances where haughty rebukes actually do work to motivate people, but they tend to be very limited to situations where there is an inherent structure of respect, like a parent and child, coach and athlete, teacher and student, etc.  You probably don't have that kind of relationship with your opponent.  Instead, you're probably just some dude, or dudette, on the internet to them.  Without that foundational structure of respect, brash language will only give them all the more reason to completely dismiss anything you say.

So be like Jesus!  OK, not the real Jesus that we find in the Gospels, but that romanticized version of Jesus who many Christians worship today.  You know, the one who is meek and humble, yet firm.  Be kind.  Be considerate.  Try to lovingly correct them.  Imagine you were having this conversation in front of your grandmother, or even with your grandmother, if you have to.  The bottom line is that you need to show respect, and be nice!

After the debate is over, they will think about you and what you said.  If you've been a jerk, made personal attacks instead of sticking to the subject matter, called them or their beliefs by offensive names, chances are they aren't going to really reconsider what you've said.  But if you are nice to them, and you show them (even undeserved) respect, you just may be heaping hot coals on their minds.  Because, if nothing else, they will be forced to wonder why someone so nice and reasonable has so many "misunderstandings", or is in collusion with Satan, or is destined for Hell.

That juxtaposition of a nice person inheriting an eternally negative afterlife is not going to be a comfortable thing for them to ponder...

Debate Tip #1: Expect to Lose

You will lose 99.99999% of all casual theology debates.  By "lose", I mean that you are not going to convince anyone to give up their faith based on your argument, at least not at that moment.

You may be right, and you may have even been able to get your opposition to admit that you have a valid point, but don't expect them to suddenly see their house of cards faith crash down right before their eyes.  Simply put, long-held beliefs don't work like that, at least not usually.  Let me illustrate through a non-faith related example:

I remember an engineering issue I had become familiar with; a certain component broke earlier than its expected lifetime.  I had considered the possible causes, and developed a theory of what the failure mechanism was.  About two years later, I had a chance to actually see the mechanism of failure in action, but there was one problem:

It didn't fail in accordance with my theory!

It took about two days for me to fully come to terms with the fact that I was wrong.  In the meantime, my mind worked to provide all kinds of alternate explanations of how my original theory was still true, but, in the end, I had to face facts.

The engineering example above is a pretty simple scenario.  I had nothing more invested in my wrong theory than my own ego.  Yet there was still a futile struggle in my mind to reject what I had learned.

Compare that to all of the complexity of religion, where there is considerable investment of finances, effort, and hope, and it should not be surprising that you will not find any converts at a debate!

The best you can hope for is to plant a seed of discomfort in your opponent's mind... a discomfort which is enough for them to consider what you've said beyond time of the debate.  Then, kind of like in Jesus' seed sowing parable (Matthew 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8), if that seed lands in fertile soil, in a mind which wants to know more than wants to believe, your loss may yet yield a victory in time.