Healthy debate is done following the rules of logic. If you are expecting to prove a point, you should plan on presenting your side using logical arguments and reasons that support your conclusions. For too many, their arguments are a door to nowhere (in more ways than one).
Years ago, I attended a lecture that proposed the use of debate tactics in preaching. Stress was placed on the logic necessary to present truth well (and somewhat convincingly). Recently, I’ve been challenged to look into the idea of teaching logic which, of course, means that I have had to read up on it. I have found Robert Gula’s book Nonsense very helpful. Here are a few points of logic we would all do well to remember as we try to carry on a dialogue:
• The “abusive ad hominem” falls under the heading of irrelevance. In this type of argument, “the personality of someone is criticized or attacked instead of what the person is saying.” The point of a debate is what is being said, not the personality or position of the one saying it.
• Arguing a priori means that you treat “what you suspect to be true as if it is true.” I wonder how many things are said because someone suspects them to be true (and perhaps they are), but has no sound reasons for why they are true. Thinking it is so doesn’t make it so.
• The irrelevant appeal to the sacred cow is an appeal to ideas or principles that are held dear. For example, a person’s criticism of altar calls or how they are handled does not in any way mean that he is against evangelism, Bible preaching, or invitations. To say, “Your criticism of altar calls is an attack on evangelism,” is to appeal to a sacred cow, and it is irrelevant to a healthy discussion of altar calls!
• One type of oversimplification is called a false dilemma. With a false dilemma, “two extremes are presented as if they were the only alternatives when, in fact, there are actually several alternatives between the two extremes.” This can be presented as an either-or option. This doesn’t mean there are never legitimate either-or situations. We just need to be sure we’ve thought out our argument before creating a false dilemma.
• Comparisons and contrasts can sometimes be irrelevant and/or invalid. For example, judging a city by comparing things as they are now to the way a person remembers them thirty years ago is a little unfair. The city has changed enough that it needs to be reexamined on its merits as it is. The contrast with a previous time is irrelevant to a discussion about the merits of a city today.
• Then there are arguments of tradition and precedent. “We’ve always done it this way.” “We better leave well enough alone.” What was fitting for the past may not necessarily be appropriate for the present. “It’s time to change what we’ve always done.” Then again, new does not necessarily mean better. But it would be good to remember that “the unquestioning appeal to, or scorn of, tradition and precedent is a type of oversimplification and invariably reflects glib, shoddy thinking.” We should be able to hang our hats on more than history.
• Finally there is the straw man. A straw man is created in an argument when you take something that has been said, exaggerate or distort it, then attack what you have created by your distortion. You have attacked a misrepresentation of what he said, not what he actually said.
These are just a few points of logic to consider. All of us should think soberly about thinking, and hopefully that will lead us to be better communicators. To motivate us to that end, Gula has advice with the closing sentence of his book on logic: “The world does not need another smart aleck.”