That is what the real problem is.

"Discussions" that become "debates" without positions/central points actually stated, give lots of wiggle room.

<without positions/central points actually stated> ...or the fact that you're even in a debate.

I know Festivus is a long way off, but I still have a couple of complaints:

1. <BP: if you vent your frustration with flat out contradictions and nothing to back them up (like posting <wrong!> over and over), then you forfeit the debate.>

This is not a good policy. If, for example, someone says "Roman Catholics worship Mary", then a simple "Wrong!" is an appropriate response.

Why? Because the person who made the truth claim is ignorant. Why should the knowledgeable person be penalized for pointing out a factual error to an ignorant person? And then, why is it the burden of responsibility on the knowledgeable person, to teach the ignorant person?

I have a doctorate in physics and am somewhat of a polymath - my time is valuable. If some dunderhead doesn't understand something, why is that <my> problem? I am not a tutor, but if I were, I would certainly charge by the hour!

2. <diceman:

<<<without positions/central points actually stated>>> ...or the fact that you're even in a debate.>

Let us suppose I want to troll someone, but disguise my trolling as "debate". I could say "Bob Hope was the first man to walk on the Moon."

Should someone have to go search the NASA website, to find and post evidence in refutation? Nope. The person who made the claim should have to back up the claim.

A low-level response on Graham's Hierarchy is never an appropriate response for a high-level debate.

<I have a doctorate in physics and am somewhat of a polymath...>

Then a TOP-LEVEL debate may not be for you.

We agree on a topic.

We give good reasons to support our arguments.

We respond to the opponent's arguments with responses that fit into the top two levels of Graham's Hierarchy.

A low-level response on Graham's Hierarchy is never an appropriate response for a high-level debate.>

We give good reasons to support our arguments. >

Um, no you don't. I asked you to provide links and quotes to support this argument:

<Big Pawn:<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative. >

It's a true statement, but the response needs to be Graham's Hierarchy's top two levels. All responses to points made need to be top two level responses.

I suggest you not engage in a TOP-LEVEL debate, since it doesn't allow emotional responses. I encourage you to enjoy lower level debates here in the <Free Speech Zone> on any topic you want. Perhaps you can restart whatever it was that you were debating with <OHIO>.

<I asked you to provide links and quotes to support this argument:

<Big Pawn:<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative. >

You never did.>

I addressed that directly already, I answered you directly, I asked you to make your position clear if you disagree with my summary of it, and I'm quite satisfied with the way that panned out.

If you want to have a debate that is more like a fight with your girlfriend or wife, then a TOP-LEVEL debate is not what you want.

I want to get away from those kinds of debates. I do not enjoy being a part of them and I do not enjoy reading them.

I don't think of my fellow posters on this page as girlfriends or wives. I like to think of you all as men, and I prefer to debate as such.

I will not be participating in petty, never-ending, catty, argument-with-the-wife debates on this most excellent forum.

It's a true statement,>

No, it is a misconception at best. A lie at worst.

<but the response needs to be Graham's Hierarchy's top two levels.>

Misconceptions do not merit such respect. The teacher does not respect the student's misconception, no. He <corrects> it.

<I suggest you not engage in a TOP-LEVEL debate, since it doesn't allow emotional responses..>

Disappointed to see that you are projecting. You are confusing my rational response with your emotional state.

<I addressed that directly already, I answered you directly,>

Indeed you were direct in what you said, but unfortunately your direct response avoided my point entirely!

What part of "provide links and quotes" are you not understanding?

After all, you claimed <We give good reasons to support our arguments.>

Yet the forum is still waiting for your supporting links and quotes.

<If you want to challenge me to a TOP-LEVEL debate on some topic, then state the topic and we can debate.>

I have <already> asked you repeatedly to meet your <own> criteria for top level debate. It is quite evident now that you will continue to refuse.

< OhioChessFan: ...

I remembered all of that. WHO SAID THAT WAS <THE> TOPIC? Quit playing with this. I'm about to drop you like I have <opt>>

Somehow I missed this previously. How close I came to falling out of fellowship with you, if the Lord had not directed my replies.

Brothers, we cannot have this. <op> is a Christian, yet I confess I also dropped him (put him on ignore) previously. He is NOT on my ignore list now, and never will be again..

(And I think he currently has me on ignore.)

And I am certain both you and I, <OCF>, have had each other on ignore at various times.

Brothers in Christ, I implore you all! Let us stop this dissension, please.

I will post this also in my forum, and <BP>'s forum, although I don't think <BP> has ever put a Christian on "ignore", to his credit. It is just that I want to spread the idea, and I know <op> reads <BP>'s forum.

As a request, <BP>, could you please repost this so <op> can read it? (maybe I am still on his ignore list).

This is beyond debate, beyond politics, beyond philosophy.

This is about the unity of the body of Christ. Going forward, times will get tougher, most likely. I pray we can all set aside our differences enough to at least never use the "ignore" function against a fellow believer.

I realize that you feel this way, and that is one of the reasons why I had to make the TOP-LEVEL debate rules. If every time your pride told you that you didn't have to respond with a top-two tier response (Graha's Hierarchy), then we would end up with a debate like you had with <ohio>, and that is a very poor quality debate.

You are given to becoming highly emotional, and once you're in that emotional mode, the quality of your responses drops dramatically, until the point where you are calling people names and such.

We absolutely can't have that in a TOP-LEVEL debate, so I made rules.

<This is beyond debate, beyond politics, beyond philosophy.>

<Brothers in Christ, I implore you all! Let us stop this dissension, please>

This is another reason why I made rules for TOP-LEVEL debates. Once you start with the emotional outbursts, the whole debate skids off the rails and all of it can be considered a giant waste.

They won't be easy because there is no noise to hide behind and no emotional outbursts allowed. It's all substance through and through.

If you want to have a discussion/debate, then this is not for you. This is if you are ready to defend some proposition. You have a TOP-LEVEL debate when you think you are right about something, not explore it together with an opponent.

When someone asks you a question, you have to answer it as long as it's relevant to the debate. If someone asks you 100 questions, hoping you won't want to answer them all and lose the debate, that's not going to work either.

Only a few questions should be allowed. A reasonable amount. You're not going to bury a person with 10 questions every time you post and hope that they'll give up because they don't want to spend 5 hours answering each post.

And if the other guy can't arrange his arguments in the same airtight way, then they will be full of holes that he's not even aware of and you can pick it apart to death, as I did for many years on the Rogoff page with the theistic arguments.

This is all technical though. I think the hardest part of critical thinking is overcoming one's biases in our inner narrative. That is, to overcome certain thought reflexes that are unhelpful. A lot of times it's the ego that is behind it all, and containing the ego can be tricky if you're not in the right mood. However, if one can build this into a thought habit, then new levels of clear thinking can be enjoyed.

On one hand, the impediment to critical thinking is lack of technical knowledge. On the other hand, the impediment is the ego. This is why a guy like <jls> can engage his critical thinking fully at work, because it's the technical side of it, but on the Rogoff page his critical thinking goes out the window, because it's the ego side of it.

I think the easiest way to start clearing up the ego side of the critical thinking challenge is by being self aware. That alone tends to help slowly putting the ego in check when constructing arguments. Also, to accept insightful criticism if it is truly insightful and technically correct.

It's about an idea the author calls "The Tyranny of the Paradigm". And he affirms people often can't-literally can't-see truth when it's presented to them. Why? Because they hold to a paradigm that prevents them from accepting something that would suggest the paradigm is false.>

Talk about overthinking it!

<Because they hold to a paradigm that prevents them from accepting something that would suggest the paradigm is false.>

I think the author is searching for the psychological reason. Are people blind to the truth, or are they in denial of it? I think that's the sort of track he's on.>

In liberalism, the problems are:

1) You own these <ideas/solutions>.

2) They're implemented by folks you call <genius/competent>.

When confronted with the atrocity/failure, it's nothing more complex than not wanting to stand for your lies, ignorance, incompetence, and failure. It's a mirror in your face.

<Are people blind to the truth>

I make sure to eliminate that "wiggle" room,
I help the blind see.(<the slaughter of blacks>)

I would suggest

<And he affirms people often can't-literally can't-see truth when it's presented to them. Why?>

that saffuna knows exactly what I'm talking about, and what he is, and who he supports. That is <Why?> he shuts his mouth.

<I think the author is searching for the psychological reason.>

You really want a psychological profile of HeMateMe/Buro/lil jiff/Perf?