Logical Fallacies

[Angrboda]

This is why religious debaters prepare the field months in advance, stacking the crowd with friendlies, busing them in often, manipulating the promotion before the debate in often unscrupulous ways, knowing what they need to succeed and ensuring the secularist agrees to all the wrong things in setting the ground rules. Skilled religious debaters make an easy meal of inexperienced secularists who are unfamiliar with 'the game'. And even knowing in advance, the general lay of the land usually ends up pitched in the religious debater's favor.

While I was already well aware that winning over the audience is done with emotional appeals and the like, I'm not familiar with what you've mentioned here. Do you have any specific instances you can mention where this has happened? I'd be interested in reading more about the bolded part.

The examples are out there. You just have to find them. I'm guessing, but I probably ran across many reading TalkOrigins.org, and other sites devoted to the evolution / creation debate. Not exactly an example of the above, but one I recently came across:

On the evening of October 26, 1994 a debate on the existence of God was scheduled between the late Greg Bahnsen and me at Rhodes College. This debate was canceled when SCCCS and I could not agree on whether the debate was to be taped and the tapes sold commercially. In place of the debate Bahnsen gave a lecture at Rhodes College that night. In order to explain my position I asked Marty Fields, the debate organizer, to read the following prepared statement to audience before Bahnsen spoke.

To Be Read Before Dr. Bahnsen Speaks on Oct. 26, 1994

I will not be participating in the debate at Rhodes College that was scheduled for this evening. I want you, the audience, to know the reason why I am not here.

Last spring Mr. Marty Fields arranged for a debate on the existence of God between Dr. Bahnsen and me to be held on October 26. In May I received a letter from Mr. Fields confirming the details. From May to early October I looked forward to the opportunity of appearing on the platform with Dr. Bahnsen and prepared long and hard for this debate. During this period I talked to Mr. Fields on the telephone several times about the debate format. At no time was anything ever said or implied, either in writing or in our telephone conversations, about the debate being recorded in any way. It was only in early October, when I telephoned Mr. Field about my travel arrangements to Memphis, that I was informed that the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, Dr. Bahnsen's sponsoring organization, had placed a condition on Dr. Bahnsen's own appearance. The condition was that Dr. Bahnsen would only participate in the debate if I signed a release form giving permission to tape the debate for later sale. After due consideration I informed Mr. Fields that this condition was unacceptable to me. My reason was clear and principled: As an atheist I did not want my participation in any debate to contribute to the financial support of a religious organization. Soon after I was contacted by a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies who proposed that this organization and I would both have rights to tape the debate and sell it. Although this would have made it possible for an atheist group as well as Dr. Bahnsen's Center to profit from the debate, I rejected the proposal: my participation in the debate would still financially support a religious organization.

On October 13 I received a FAX from a representative of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies delivering an ultimatum: for the debate to proceed I must sign a release form no later than noon of October 14. A reply was Faxed back to the Center saying that although I would not sign their form I would be happy to participate in the debate so long as it was not taped and requesting that an agreement be signed to this effect.

The Southern California Center for Christian Studies and I seemed to have reached an impasse, but matters did not stop there. The response of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies to my principled objection to its profiting from my participation in the debate was to issue a press release on October 17 accusing me of cowardliness. To a former Marine, the suggestion that his conduct is cowardly is insulting in any context. But in the present context, where I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to debate, the accusation is outrageous and the press release itself defamatory.

The reason why I was interested in debating Dr. Bahnsen in the first place is that I take his position on God very seriously. I am quite willing to come to Rhodes College to give my views about the problems involved in Dr. Bahnsen's defense of Christianity. Of course, my offer to debate Dr. Bahnsen still stands. I was willing, am willing and will continue to be willing to debate Dr. Bahnsen so long as the debate is not taped.

I hope this statement lays to rest once and for all any lingering suspicions that I am afraid to engage in serious public debate with Dr. Bahnsen.

— Michael Martin

I have only recently learned that Mr. Fields chose not to honor my request to read my prepared statement. That is regrettable for despite the clear and principled reasons for declining to debate that I expressed to SCCCS, confusions, distortions, and misinformation concerning my motives continue to be circulated. In particular, Michael Butler, Jeffrey Ventrella, and Marty Fields have commented on these matters on the Internet. I hope in this note to clear up some of the issues.


General Comments

The first thing to stress is that what happened regarding the cancellation of the debate should be described correctly. This has often not been done. In fact, the debate was canceled by mutual consent because of a disagreement that could not be reconciled. However, as the situation is usually described, I pulled out of the debate because I refused to participate if it was taped and I therefore am made the guilty party and put on the defense. But what is forgotten — although it should be clear from the above statement — is that I was quite willing to debate provided the debate was not taped and that Bahnsen is the one who would not proceed under these conditions. It is interesting that no one representing SCCCS or the sponsoring organization describes the situation as Bahnsen pulling out of the debate although this account is just as accurate as the description of my pulling out. Is this apparent asymmetry because Bahnsen "showed up" at the scheduled time? But he showed up to give a lecture — not to debate. I was also willing to give a lecture at the scheduled time but I was not invited to do so.

—

---

A debate may very well be about "winning over the audience", but it's winning them over using an argument. Fallacies are fallacies for a reason. Just because something wins over the audience does not make it true.

Of course it doesn't make it true. However, it gives the audience the perception that it's true - which for a great many people, is indistinguishable from "truth".

But is there anything beyond the perception of the reality? That is the reality. esse est percipi. The aim is for clarity of perception, and in understanding experience. My previous signature had a relevant quote from Chrysippus. To the Stoics, wisdom consisted in being able to choose the true from the false, to apprehend, and select out only correct apprehensions. This, too, was the foundation of their theory of happiness: wisdom == happiness == always right choosing. However the Skeptics denied it possible to meet this standard. That no one is truly wise. And a miss is as good as a mile. Or as Chrysippus opined, "A man a cubit below the water is drowning as much as a man five hundred fathoms down."