Debating

[Tom Wetmore]

I can't speak for "debaters" whatever that broadly encompassing term might mean, but yes, lawyers are indeed taught to tell the truth and to state what they believe to be true, most significantly in court where the high standard for truthfulness is exemplified by the harsh penalty for perjury. Our code of ethics is unmatched in any other profession for its emphasis on honesty and truthfulness. Dishonesty and lying can result in a lawyer losing his license to practice, including knowingly allowing or assisting a client to commit perjury in court.

To answer your second question, I would simply say that one can defend, or present and represent, a point of view that one does not believe in with perfect honesty and integrity.

I would suggest that the apparent underlying assumption in you questions as it relates to this whole discussion is troubling and has given rise to a great deal of the rancor and discord experienced here on CA - that only one side or point of view can be true or correct and that anyone with a different perspective is lacking truth and honesty. And it seems flowing from that error is the false notion that in "debating" it is perfectly acceptable to misrepresent or twist and distort another's point of view just because one does not agree with or believe in that point of view. Such "debating" tactic is simply bad form and in a formal debate will result in a loss of points and quite possible the whole debate. It is an ends justifying the means fallacy and is simply being intellectually dishonest.

Tom

[lazarus]

Debates are not the problem. I cannot recall ever seeing a real debate here.

One man's debate is another man's argument, is another man's exercise in futility.

EDD you may be aware of what a true debate is, some of us may not be aware. The great thing about this forum is that in the exchange of ideas we may all discover something about something. We may learn what it is to debate if someone may share the knowledge is a way that can be easily received.

I think if we all approach each thread accepting the possibilty that we may discover something, be reminded of something or even change our minds on an issue then we may all have a healthier interaction with eachother.

[Neil D]

Cyber duel is a good phrase.

There are some people on CA, and its a few in my opinion, who are arrogant and love the sound of their own keyboard.

Ah, yes,...the smell of your coffee with cream and honey, the sound of the clicks of the keyboard, the feel of cool air from the nearby window.....and the tension of who will get the last word.....

Makes one feel....alive!

[lazarus]

Quote:

Ah, yes,...the smell of your coffee with cream and honey, the sound of the clicks of the keyboard, the feel of cool air from the nearby window.....and the tension of who will get the last word.....

Makes one feel....alive!

I hope that's decaffinated coffee! I hope its Vegan cream! I have to look up what EGW says about honey......back in a moment.....(goes to look in his EGW index)

[Neil D]

I hope that's decaffinated coffee! I hope its Vegan cream! I have to look up what EGW says about honey......back in a moment.....(goes to look in his EGW index)

Nope, is full strength black coffee, and the cream is fresh from the cow!

But it's ok, because of the honey! Honey santified it! Heaven forbid that *I* , a good jack adventist, should violate the laws of health, and have sugar with my coffee!

[John317]

...I would suggest that the apparent underlying assumption in you questions as it relates to this whole discussion is troubling and has given rise to a great deal of the rancor and discord experienced here on CA - that only one side or point of view can be true or correct and that anyone with a different perspective is lacking truth and honesty.

I have never said that nor meant that, nor is it the underlying assumption in my questions about this whole discussion. Could you point out to me what I said that caused you to arrive at the conclusion above?

What is your evidence that my "apparent underlying assumption" has given rise to a great deal of rancor and discord experienced here on CA?

Quote:

And it seems flowing from that error is the false notion that in "debating" it is perfectly acceptable to misrepresent or twist and distort another's point of view just because one does not agree with or believe in that point of view. Such "debating" tactic is simply bad form and in a formal debate will result in a loss of points and quite possible the whole debate. It is an ends justifying the means fallacy and is simply being intellectually dishonest.

Tom

Tom, you really need to go back and reread what I wrote. I never said-- as you claim here, perhaps by mistake-- that in debating, you are supposed to twist and distort another's point of view. In fact, if I thought you did it on purpose, I would have to conclude that this is exactly what you are doing with my words, twisting and distorting them. For what I actually said was that in debating, there is often a twisting of the truth or an avoidance of some of the evidence. I said that in a debate the object is not necessarily to arrive at truth but to win a debate. That doesn't mean, of course, there aren't exceptions or that everyone who debates is equally dishonest or even dishonest at all.

I studied rhetoric as a graduate student and took classes in debating in college. Nothing was ever said about the importance of telling the truth. What I distinctly remember both hearing and reading was the importance of persuading others that you are telling the truth. In other words, much was said about the importance of appearing to be trustworthy. They tell you what clothes to wear and how to approach people in order to give them the clear impression that you are honest and worthy of their trust. It is all about presentation, not about real honesty and integrity. This is a subject that is discussed at length in the dialogues of Plato and in the classic writers on rhetoric, such as Isocrates and Aristotle.

In his book, Rhetoric, 1404a, for instance, Aristotle says, "The whole business of rhetoric being concerned with appearances..." The art of persuasion is not any different today. The emphasis is upon appearances, often at the expense of the truth.

[melvin mccarty]

Luke 18: 9-14

[Amelia]

I would like to point out that this topic is about debate. Not about pointing fingers at anyone. So please stay on topic and take any pointing fingers to the sink and wash them. Thank you.

[John317]

Quote:

Well... for starters' date=' you have done so in your last post here on this topic:

Quote:

That is the whole object of both sides in a true debate. It is not really to discover or show the truth but to win. Debating is often used as a training ground for lawyers to learn how to win court cases, and they use the same techniques: outsmart the opposing side, even if it means being dishonest.

Quote:

Untrue that the object of real and responsible debating is to win at the expense of the truth or that lawyers are trained using such unethical techniques.

This is really a matter of opinion rather than an "untruth," Tom. I know of many people who would agree with me. This is the very kind of difference of opinion that I said is not relevent to my question. I respect your opinion, but it is after all an opinion.

Again, what I am asking for is for you to show me evidence of where my "dialoguing" or "conversations" here have hurt people because of something either unkind or untruthful that I have written. It may be that others have not shared my opinion or conclusions on a matter, but that is not what I am talking about here. What I am asking for is evidence that the dialogue, or "debate," itself has been harmful to CA.

Quote:

But more to the point, it is a needless and hurtful slur to lawyers to suggest that lawyers are trained to win at all costs, including the use of dishonesty. It perpetuates an untrue and prejudicial stereotype about lawyers. Tom [/quote']

It's unfortunate, Tom, that you evidently took my words here to mean that I am saying all lawyers without exception are dishonest. Many lawyers are dishonest, of course, as I am sure you will admit, and many do try to win cases at the expense of truth. A good example is the recent, well known case of the district attorney who was disbarred for dishonesty because he knew the men whom he was prosecuting were innocent of the charges. But no one can conclude on the basis of what some lawyers do that all lawyers do those things.

Please notice, though, that my point has to do with the nature of debate rather than with lawyers. One of the reasons I brought it up was that I recently had a conversation with a pastor friend of mine who had been discussing some important issues with a high profile SDA who enjoys winning debates. Then I also read what Ellen White says about debates, and it is obvious that she did not favor them.

For instance, she wrote:

1) That advocates of truth should not seek debate (1 T 624);

2) That we should avoid debates whenever possible (3 T 203);

3) Combativeness is strengthened by debates (3 T 424);

4) Oral or written debates generally do more harm than good (3 T 213);

5) Prejudice resulting from debates is often deep and bitter ( 3 T 425);

6) Satan stirs up combativeness by spirit of debate (Ev. 163);

7) Truth is cast before swine in debates (3 T 425-6);

8) Truth is seldom advanced by debates (3 T 203424).

I've already said on the posts that I prefer not to take part in true debates but to discuss things with people in an exchange that is more like an informal conversation where both sides show sincere respect for each other. I am taking part in one such conversation with JASD on the subject of Leviticus and another on a thread titled, "Salvation, Restoration." I've also been involved for quite some time now with Robert on a thread regarding the law.

[John317]

Luke 18: 9-14

Great verses. Thank you again.

[Clio]

You're doing it right now j317.

Your entire thrust is to negate Tom's and my feelings, perceptions, and hurt to show how you are right and we are wrong, regardless of your words or actions.

You have in very many words shown to your satisfaction how we are wrong, and therefore since we continue to state our hurt or damage, without integrity or honesty... because we don't conform to your vision of truth.

Please just stop. We already recognize that in your mind your beliefs are superior.

I for one will back away and let you believe what you will. I know who I am in Abba's family and nothing you can do or say or believe will take away one iota of His delight in me.

Just as nothing we can do or say or believe will take away one iota of His delight in you.

[melvin mccarty]

Thank you Amelia and is it ok if I send some bandaids for the fingers of those who have keyboard diarrhea? lol (ducking out the door)

[Amelia]

Ohhhhh Melvin teehe

[Amelia]

Again I have to interrupt and say that the pointing fingers are still wagging.

Please return to the topic of the thread!

[melvin mccarty]

I said my piece about debating and I agree with Stan basically. What value is there in endlessly repeating? I did vote.

Oh I know I dont have to be here but it's so much fun!

mel

[Gail]

I think that Melvin's been having too much fun in this serious discussion... What's up with that?

:)

[Amelia]

He is having an attack of the funny bone

[Tom Wetmore]

You're doing it right now j317.

Your entire thrust is to negate Tom's and my feelings, perceptions, and hurt to show how you are right and we are wrong...

You have in very many words shown to your satisfaction how we are wrong...because we don't conform to your vision of truth.

Please just stop....

I for one will back away and let you believe what you will...

Exactamente! I couldn't have said it better myself if I had tried!

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Just one last point and I am leaving this foolish debate with you. You are acting like a man obsessed and possessed - Clio said it well...

It's unfortunate, Tom, that you evidently took my words here to mean that I am saying all lawyers without exception are dishonest.

No, that is not what I said... I took exception with you false statement that lawyers are trained to be dishonest and unethical in order to win at all costs because it implies and perpetuates the equally false notion that lawyers are dishonest and ethical. And your very next sentence shows that you believe the false and prejudicial stereotype, which I, as a lawyer, find personally offensive and take strong exception to, because it is simply not true...

Originally Posted By: John317

Many lawyers are dishonest, of course...and many do try to win cases at the expense of truth.

If indeed your statement were true, as illustrated by your example of the exceptional case, then many lawyers would likewise be disbarred as that DA was. It is noteworthy and newsworthy because it is exceptional and done by only a few rather than the many you postulate. Using the word "many" implies most or that it is commonly found to be the case, which slurs lawyers as a group. It functions much like racial stereotypes...

Originally Posted By: John317

A good example is the recent, well known case of the district attorney who was disbarred for dishonesty ...

And a doctor is convicted of killing a patient, a minister is convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, a CPA is convicted of embezzlement, and... which does not establish that many doctors are murders, ministers are pedophiles, CPA's are thieves, or more to the point, none of them are professionally trained to do such things. Indeed quite the opposite is true.

Originally Posted By: John317

But no one can conclude on the basis of what some lawyers do that all lawyers do those things.

And throwing this in at the end hardly negates what you said, because it is simply a nonsequitor to everything else you said on the point.

OK, I am done. If you want to have the last word, go for it...

Tom

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: John317

...What I am asking for is for you to show me evidence of where my "dialoguing" or "conversations" here have hurt people because of something either unkind or untruthful that I have written...

Well... for starters, you have done so in your last post here on this topic:

Quote:

That is the whole object of both sides in a true debate. It is not really to discover or show the truth but to win. Debating is often used as a training ground for lawyers to learn how to win court cases, and they use the same techniques: outsmart the opposing side, even if it means being dishonest.

Untrue that the object of real and responsible debating is to win at the expense of the truth or that lawyers are trained using such unethical techniques. But more to the point, it is a needless and hurtful slur to lawyers to suggest that lawyers are trained to win at all costs, including the use of dishonesty. It perpetuates an untrue and prejudicial stereotype about lawyers.

Tom

It may not be true in your case but from my families experience Lawyers who are prosecutors lie and weasel their way to win a case no matter who they destroy.

A DA in SW Virginia lied and presured a witness to lie about my brother in law and even threated the witnesses daughter with a long prison term who was arrested with her boyfriend who was smuggling oxycontin into the state. She did not know but the DA threatened the father with a long prison term for his daughter unless he testified lies against my brother in law. So Sorry if I think DA Lawyers are weasals and liars who will say and do anything to win a case.

[Taylor]

There are bad people in every profession. We just have to remmeber not to classify all people in the same boat because there are many more fantastic, upright, hard working, admirable people in every profession than crooks. Stereotyping a profession is just as bad as stereotyping a race of people. I feel for everyone who has had bad experiences with lawyers, doctors, teachers, parents, etc etc but lets look at the vast amount of positive examples in every case.

Tom, we are glad you are here!!

[LifeHiscost]

If indeed your statement were true, as illustrated by your example of the exceptional case, then many lawyers would likewise be disbarred as that DA was.

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1:15 KJV

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

I think that Melvin's been having too much fun in this serious discussion... What's up with that?

Did you not know that anything that would indicate a measure of fun must be sinful? :x

"Be not [morbidly exacting and externally] righteous overmuch, neither strive to make yourself [pretentiously appear] overwise--why should you [get puffed up and] destroy yourself [with presumptuous self-sufficiency]?" Ecc 7:16 AMP

Regards!

[melvin mccarty]

Hey I'm listening! Talkin behind my back's not allowed! lol

[Gail]

Hi, Melvin

You still got snow up there?

I don't think I've ever seen this much participation from you in a thread yet!

Good to see you