The Burden of Proof

In any debate, there are two sides, the claimant and attacker.
(For some elaboration on these and other debating guidelines I refer you to the Guidelines Section)

In debating circles, often the claimant will shift the burden of proof, and claim some or other fallacy of logic.  The Claimant, however has shifted the burden of proof, which is itself a fallacy.  It is up to the claimant to provide reasoning for his claim.  It is up to the attacker to show why the reasoning is faulty.  It is easy for the claimant to ignore that and to simply criticize the attacker.  This is faulty logic.  The Claimant cannot attack, he can only defend his position against the attack.  If the attacker presented a new position, that must be dealt with separately, but the claimant's defense must withstand the attacker's attack, if the claimant did not defend his position, and show why the attacker's attack is fallacious, the claim falls away, and the position, initially presented is no longer tenable.

In addition, on a forum where debate is written, and not spoken, making claims and presenting arguments is easy.  But to show why or where the claim is faulty is on the onus of the person attacking.  If an argument is circular, it needs to be spelled out - which argument is circular?  Why? How?  It is no use simply stating: 'Oh your argument is circular' That is is lazy, and not useful.  Better stated is: 'Your argument regarding "X" is circular, because you assumed "Y", and that is already part of the understanding in "X"'.

The same is true for all debate - cite the difficulty, and then present the reasoning behind why it is fallacious.  Generalized, ambiguous arguments are not helpful, nor do they present any real objection, but rather obfuscate the process.

Appeal to Emotion

To be emotionally engaged in an objection, logical inference or position, is to really ignore the possibility that the position statement, objection or inference could be or is likely to be wrong. For example take the following hypothetical conjecture.

Imagine Fred likes strawberries.  In fact Fred likes them so much that he feels emotionally deprived without them, he eats strawberries at all three meals he has per day, and feels very unsatisfied if his daily dosage of strawberries has not been fulfilled.

Now imagine there is a world-wide pandemic and strawberries all over the world are found to be infested with a rare, deadly disease.  If Fred is emotionally engaged with strawberries, all the evidence, all the scientific, biological papers, all the proofs from the Surgeon General, all the scientific arguments, all the statements made by doctors, even Fred's own mother would fail to convince Fred of the dangers of eating strawberries.  Yes, Fred is probably insane, unrealistic, psychologically disturbed and possibly emotionally unstable.  Logic, sound reasoning and clear unambiguous facts do not help Fred because he needs to be emotionally convinced.

To convince or persuade someone emotionally requires psychology.  To convince someone rationally, objectively with a desire for the truth  then logic, sound reasoning and facts that are unambiguous are going to be the mechanism for determining the correct path.

The question therefore, whenever one is engaged in debate is: "Am I emotionally involved in the outcome?" If the outcome is negative, and my position is wrong, am I intellectually positive, or am I going to react negatively to such a position, because of the outcome?"  If you are one of these people who, given that the position reached will reach the opposite conclusion, will be upset, or remain unconvinced of the alternative, or not budge from your position, then you may be emotionally involved in the argument, and debate is futile.

The arguments and reasoning presented are to those who have an open mind, to those who are able to see other points of view, and to accept them as logically viable.  It is part of being a intellectually healthy human being to accept and understand alternative positions, and to argue them constructively, methodically and arrive at different results.  What you do with these results is your own prerogative, however, it behooves us, if we wish to be honest and intellectually true, to change our views so that the truth of our conviction matches our beliefs, in a sound, logical and reasoned manner.

Clarity of Thought

In order to convey a message it needs to be clear and succinct. It reflects on the speaker/writer that a person who conveys a point clearly and concisely means that his mind, actions and thoughts are clear, precise and logical.  A captain of on ocean liner, who declares: "Oh, I have no idea where we are headed, and we don't have a course in which to go", will certainly not command any respect - neither his sailors, who have been paid to follow his orders, nor the passengers who paid to travel to their destination.  You are the captain of your thoughts and the presentation of them conveys everything about which you stand for.

1. The best manner in which to clarify one's argument and thought process is to number each item.  Make sure that the items numbered are in order of importance, or are in a sequence that reflects progression either in time, or logic.

2. Clarity and clarification means thinking about what you're saying.  This means putting pen to paper (or keyboard to blog), and to re-read what one has written - eliminating spelling and grammatical mistakes - and to ensure that it will be read correctly and understood.

3. Accuracy means researching the material conveyed.  This means that what ever statement is made, it should be thoroughly investigated for accuracy.  Outdated, outmoded, or incorrect material is irrelevant to current discussions: it simply is a breeding ground for inaccuracy and miscommunication.

4.  Make sure what is written or said makes sense, can be understood and is supported with quality, relevant and up-to-date sources.  The best statements are said briefly, with single citations, from sources that everyone agrees to.

5. Presenting a position can only help if its unclear what is meant.  Once stated, it behooves the person to clarify and support his position.  Often people present positions based on material that only reflects one side of the debate, with sources that are out-dated, from a level of interpretation that is polemical (i.e. biased and favors a particular view).  Wouldn't it be more constructive to imagine the other side, and from their position, argue why it is inconsistent, using their sources?

6. Translations are a serious challenge to debate.  Consider using the original sources, rather than fueling the fire with inaccurate translations.  Cite the original text or link to the actual text.