Attack, Defend, Defeat!

[Aloysius]

I am a radical opposer to political correctness and linguistic sanitation. As such, I do not feel it necessary to remove words like "attack" and "defeat" from debates. I feel that's just another ineffective language-sanitation technique; as faulty as the idea that we can acheive gender equality by forcing people to use "him or her". it is no more effective to make us replace words which make debates lively in warfare allegory with more political correct terms like "clarify" and "discuss"

haha... no offence to Bro Adam's site or anything. It's a perfectly fine thing not to have bad attitudes about debate, but I do enjoy the livliness of the presumed warfare analogy.

oh... and I don't mean to come off as pompous or arrogant... haha... I just don't feel the need to alter my vocabulary in this manner. feel free to try to convince me that I should alter it here.

[Paladin]

I always like to refer to the [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&version=49&context=chapter"]example of St. Paul[/url].

And always follow the old Catholic principle: "In doubtful things, liberty. In essential things, unity. In all things, charity." Even if the other guy is clearly wrong, be charitable. If you're going into a debate with the mindset "[i]I[/i] must win!" you're missing the point.

Apologetics is not about winning, and not even about defending the faith. Jesus said something about the fires of hell never prevailing against the Church, remember? The Bride of Christ doesn't need you to defend her, she has the King of the Universe to do that. The point of apologetics is to convince and convert, and you'll convert far more with carrots than sticks.

In sum, ideas of "defeating your opponent" and "winning the fight" miss the goal of apologetics: revealing truth. Make sure you're always [i]Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam[/i] and never [i]Ad Majorem Mei Gloriam[/i].

My two cents.

[Mateo el Feo]

I found this to be a helpful book: [url="http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Share-Your-Faith/dp/1888992301"]"How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics" by Mark Brumley[/url]

[Aloysius]

I understand how you shouldn't have the wrong mindset. But I still stand by the use of terms like "attack" and "defeat" in the midst of arguments.

the phrase in question that sparked this thread, for anyone who doesn't know, was something like "I shall let the fathers of the Council of Trent defeat you there". I think it's a perfectly legitimate phrase... what would you have me say? "The fathers of the Council of Trent clearly indicate your incorrectitude on this issue"? blah, I say the Council defeats him and I stick to that.

[Paladin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222434' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:55 PM']I understand how you shouldn't have the wrong mindset. But I still stand by the use of terms like "attack" and "defeat" in the midst of arguments.

the phrase in question that sparked this thread, for anyone who doesn't know, was something like "I shall let the fathers of the Council of Trent defeat you there". I think it's a perfectly legitimate phrase... what would you have me say? "The fathers of the Council of Trent clearly indicate your incorrectitude on this issue"? blah, I say the Council defeats him and I stick to that.[/quote]
So what is the "defender" to do now? Go home and weep, conquered? How does that bring him any closer to the truth?

It might be more [i]charitable[/i] (charity being our greatest of virtues) to say "While you make an interesting argument, the fathers of the Council of Trent addressed the issue." There's no need to tear down someone's argument, just to correct their statements and guide them to the truth.

It's not so much about "political correctness" as it is having Christian charity. Read what St. Paul said in Acts as I quoted above. He didn't say "Dude, you pagans are just [i]wrong[/i]. Jesus is Lord and you are defeated." He praised them for their seeking of truth and then guided them to it. He had no need to attack anyone.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I try to avoid charged words if I am making a case to someone. I think it is unecessary and could jeopardize my efforts. But that's my style and I suppose a more firm approach is appropriate in certain circumstances.

[Aloysius]

And so now, apparently, it's uncharitable to speak of arguments as attacking and defeating other arguments, is it? That's ridiculous.

I never advocated the fundamentalist bible-beating way of argument saying "oh you're just wrong"; I'm just sayin that these phrases are perfectly accurate. You should attack and defeat the other argument in a debate; and that is what this is: a debate.

you're charecturizing my argument as uncharitable based on this arbitrary use of words; just like people charecturize people as sexist for their arbitrary use of words. it's absolutely ridiculous to make it seem like I'm doing anything other than 1) attempting to bring better understanding on all sides and 2) letting the published record show the side I am advocating as correct so that all that read it will be convinced of the truth. I don't see any problem with the use of "defeat" in this context.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='thedude' post='1222479' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:59 PM']I try to avoid charged words if I am making a case to someone. I think it is unecessary and could jeopardize my efforts. But that's my style and I suppose a more firm approach is appropriate in certain circumstances.[/quote]
exactly.

[jeffpugh]

Just an iota, I think Aloysius has a point. But we gotta remember one is attacking the idea, not the person. Show much respect for the person but feel free to lay siege to the other's argument if it is that sort of thing. Unfortunately though, there is no such thing as a 'gentleman's' war anymore. People take offense easily. I dunno... just use proper judgment for the circumstances.

[Budge]

Avoid this stuff?

#3 by far is the most widely used...

[quote]
* 1: Rubberstamp technique


Regurgitate Catholic doctrine without providing any scriptural proof,
Otherwise, known as propaganda.



* 2: Cut-and-paste technique


Find the closest doctrinal defense on an "Catholic Answers" website,
stick it into your clipboard and post away.
Upon receiving a scriptural rebuttal,
switch the topic to Catholic infallibility
and then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.

[b]* 3: Accusation of hate technique


Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate.
It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful.
This technique should always contain a reference,
to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.[/b]


* 4: Mystery interpretation technique


Any text can mean anything when interpreted under the
mystical interpretation technique.
Use this to your advantage then utilize the rubber-stamp technique.
Most often used with Eucharistic defenses.
Symbolic? No! Literal? No! Mysterious?
What else can you do?


* 5: Words without meaning technique


If you are receiving any roadblocks by any particular word
you previously gave in your apologetic,
or if what you've described is the definition of a word
detrimental to your defense,
simply deny the basic word meaning of the troubling term.
Due to its effectiveness,
this apologetic has become so popular
that it has been adopted by the President.


* 6. Bait and Switch technique


If your apologetics are being shot down repeatedly,
it is because you are staying on one topic for too long.
In the Catholic apologetics arena,
it is always a good idea to present a moving target.
If your perpetual virginity defense is becoming an embarrassment,
switch it to a virgin birth defense,
pretend your opponent has denied it
and act outraged at his heresy.[/list]


* 7: Attack Sola Scriptura technique


Put forth that scripture is only one of the sources of God's revelation.
However, due to the overwhelming levels of contradictory doctrines,
Of the Early Day Church Fathers
this will usually have to be accompanied
with the rubber-stamping technique.


* 8: Attack Martin Luther technique


This can be used as a companion apologetic to the
Attack Sola Scriptura technique.
Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply
that “Biblical Christianity” began with the "Reformation."
Insist the opponent is a follower of Martin Luther,
or one of the other Reformers,
Do not accept any denials of this.
Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy if they deny this accusation.


* 9: Stalking technique


Harass the Christian until he becomes a Catholic.
Can utilize any of the other above methods.
The object is to fill their e-mail and guestbooks daily with Catholic apologetics.
When your opponent will no longer respond to you,
insist that he is afraid to debate you.
Continue to harass them until they denounce speaking out against Catholicism
or you are at risk of losing your ISP account for a second time.
If you are about to lose your ISP a second time,
pass the baton over to a fellow Catholic apologist.


* 10: Babbling technique


Remember when you were a kid.
If you closed your eyes, danger would go away.
This technique is a variation on that theme.
When backed into a corner,
begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget
that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place.
With all the other fine Apologetic techniques available,
this one is usually not advised.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

But Budge you forgot your favorite tactic on that list: making accusations against the Church, ignoring all the responses proving you wrong, than starting a new attack on a different topic.

[KnightofChrist]

I think the worse is rather


The Duck and Run technique.

Find some off the wall accusation on an "Catholicism is Evil" website,
stick it into your clipboard and post away.
Upon receiving a scriptural rebuttal,
answer with silence, and run away.

Edited March 30, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Budge]

[quote]making accusations against the Church, ignoring all the responses proving you wrong[/quote]

Proving you wrong.

Ever think I see that differently?

Even I have limited internet time and considering Im talking to 20 people here on the other side, I couldnt answer every single point even if I tried.

[Budge]

Theres one guy that posted a bunch of James verses about works, that did give me a run for my money but even there, works COME out of FAITH. They do not save, they are a FRUIT of FAITH.
[quote]Find some off the wall accusation on an "Catholicism is Evil" website,
stick it into your clipboard and post away.[/quote]

But I sincerely believe Catholicism is evil...{NOT CATHOLIC PEOPLE} but the false religion.

So why wouldnt I post something off a Catholicism is evil website?

Wouldnt you post something off a MORMONISM is evil website?

or is that too unecumenical even though they are preaching that lucifer is Jesus's brother?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1222658' date='Mar 29 2007, 11:59 PM']But I sincerely believe Catholicism is evil...{NOT CATHOLIC PEOPLE} but the false religion.[/quote]I sincerely believe the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church is evil...{NOT INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTALIST BAPTIST PEOPLE} but the false religion.

Wait a sec...the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists can't agree on anything anyway. Nevermind.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222389' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:11 PM']I am a radical opposer to political correctness and linguistic sanitation. As such, I do not feel it necessary to remove words like "attack" and "defeat" from debates. I feel that's just another ineffective language-sanitation technique; as faulty as the idea that we can acheive gender equality by forcing people to use "him or her". it is no more effective to make us replace words which make debates lively in warfare allegory with more political correct terms like "clarify" and "discuss"

haha... no offence to Bro Adam's site or anything. It's a perfectly fine thing not to have bad attitudes about debate, but I do enjoy the livliness of the presumed warfare analogy.

oh... and I don't mean to come off as pompous or arrogant... haha... I just don't feel the need to alter my vocabulary in this manner. feel free to try to convince me that I should alter it here.[/quote]

Hmm...I'm glad I came to phatmass today I think? I don't know where this came from, or if there is something I'm missing, but to clarify the motto of our website at Catechetics Online is to "Never Attack. Never Defend. Always Clarify." The motto is not about being politically correct. In fact there is little politically correct about Catechetics Online. It goes directly against the popular mode of Catholic catechesis developed by Groome and Moran. Remember our website has to do primarily with catechesis and not grass roots apologetics, so the motto is fitting. While one can attack the argument in a debate, there is just no reason to use inflamed words. You don't want those you are catechizing to put up their defenses. St. John Bosco taught that we should get students to "love you, that way they will follow you anywhere." With students, even those in RCIA there is just no reason to attack - that is not what the Church asks of us, no reason to really even defend unless you have an especially ardent anti-catholic (but then why are they in RCIA?), the Church can take care of herself, but we need to be there to answer questions as Catholics to those who are inquiring - to clarify. The best answer is both charitable and calm - it gives respect to the other person, you will gain respect yourself, as well as a right to be heard, and you won't look like a buffoon those times when you slip up and make a mistake. I find now that I have gotten back into debate with Protestants after a year break I'm getting a lot farther a lot faster by never returning heated argument or logical fallacies (the ad hominen, red herring, argument to feeling, etc) and always just finding what the person is actually asking and answering that. It usually calms them down pretty quick and opens them up to real dialogue.

[Mateo el Feo]

Wonderful points, Adam, especially your motto.

Al, I would like to suggest something to you. In the other thread, I think that you provided a solid response to some of the questions that jesussaves brought up. At the same time, I think there was a definite hostile (and adversarial) tone in your response. I don't think that it can be justified (it's certainly counter-productive). In this case, jesussaves' original post had a few "digs" against the Church (stuff like, "the Catholic magisterium has the audacity"). So there was some hostility to begin with, but it was all pretty minor, I'd say.

In any event, I believe you desire to be an effective instrument for sharing the Faith with others--God bless you for that. What I and others here are suggesting are ways that will help you achieve your goal.

If I can recommend a "warrior-saint" worth emulating, it would be Saint Ignatius of Loyola. If you haven't read his biography, I would strongly recommend this one: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895553457/"]The Life of St. Ignatius of Loyola by Fr. Genelli, SJ[/url]. In it, St. Ignatius faces quite a bit of adversity. What is amazing is the strength and persuasiveness that is the fruit of his docility. I do hope you'll consider this advice and the advice of the others.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1222658' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:59 PM']Theres one guy that posted a bunch of James verses about works, that did give me a run for my money but even there, works COME out of FAITH. They do not save, they are a FRUIT of FAITH.
But I sincerely believe Catholicism is evil...{NOT CATHOLIC PEOPLE} but the false religion.

So why wouldnt I post something off a Catholicism is evil website?

Wouldnt you post something off a MORMONISM is evil website?

or is that too unecumenical even though they are preaching that lucifer is Jesus's brother?[/quote]


If I was defeated as many times you have been with your post from anti-catholic websites, no. And I unlike yourself would respond to the scripture passages, the only reason I would not is because I could not.

And thats why you never answer the strong retorts to your anti-catholic copy and paste's, because the retorts defeat your paste's, and you have no answer.

On that note where in The Holy Bible does spirit = symbolic? Do you believe the spirit = symbolic only when referring to the body and blood of Our Lord, or are there other cases?

Edited March 30, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

Bro Adam; I do like the motto of your site; I only referred to it in jest because my defense of the words would seem to contradict the motto; which I do not intend to contradict because the mindset of argument you refer to by Never Attack, Never Defend, Always Clarify. Let me right now declare my utmost respect and agreement with such a philosophy; my reference to your site's motto was not intended as an insult to it... I was being slightly jovial because I was defending using words of warfare allegory to discuss what happened in debate and on the surface that would seem to contradict the words of your motto.

I do not believe my post to have been too adversarial... a few light jabs here and there indicating that the Fathers of the Council anticipated and defeated this argument long ago; that they knew more about the ECFs than jesusanswers or I did, et cetera... I suppose it could be interpretted that way, but it seems to me it's just the fun little language games that are designed to catch attention and make for entertaining banter were picked out and declared uncharitable. I really don't like that, that's what I call political correctness.

I think anyone who reads the way I respond in debates on a regular basis should understand I am totally on board with a mindset that would seek for both sides to come out with better understandings of things... I don't usually have a simplistic adversarial tone, nor do I feel I came accross that way in that thread. A few jabs like "The fathers of the Council defeat you here!" I don't think are inflamatory in the least; I would welcome a protestant who responded to some proposition I had made about Martin Luther by saying "Aha, the words of this great reformer himself defeat you here!". It makes for interesting conversation and lively, but not inflamed or angry, debate. I'm arguing against politically correct aversion to fun little phrases like this, not against the mindset of fair, honest, and charitable dialogue within the context of debate. My posts always turn out far longer than they were ever intended to be in my attempt to explore all sides of an issue from as far a perspective as I can acheive..

Perhaps such rhetoric is a dying breed? Perhaps, in order to squelch all possibility of being interpretted as uncharitable, we shall have to resort to binary codes of sanitary facts and nothing more one day. Perhaps this is how internet discussions will strike another blow to the fun and entertaining aspects of human argumentation. blah... ah well... bring on the newspeek maybe? never again say you shall defeat your debate opponent? certainly never speak of attacking him on this or that issue that he seems weak on... just state the facts in standard and precise manners so that no one ever gets inflamed.

But yeah... Bro Adam, sorry for any offence to your motto. It's a good motto; just not when people try to tell me not to include those specific words as part of my rhetorical style... but I welcome people to tell me (as some of you seem to think I have also done in this particular post) if they think I am having too much of a argumentative win-lose perspective at the expense of the better understanding of my opponent. I did not feel that I was in this particular post, though.

[Anomaly]

okay. Can I just insert a chuckle here?