On the ethics of debate

This forum has a set of 10 rules that members agree to. However, given the complexity of human society it is not possible to incorporate all rules of behavior into any given set, such at those for this forum.One set of rules is ethical behavior.The avowed purpose of this forum is to debate evolution versus creationism. While the particular words evolution and creationism can be take liberally for the purpose of discussion, the concept is clear. The point is to raise questions about each of the positions, answer those questions, and try to reach a conclusion, if not a consensus.In order to create a valid debate, some rules must be followed. To the point of my post, when a question is asked, the opponent is required to answer. A question may have one or more of many purposes, not the least of which is to require the opponent to ponder an opinion held and show justification for that position. In doing so, the questioner often expects the opponent to realize the error of their ways.When a participant in a debate declines to answer a question, they have violated one of the fundamental concepts of a debate. To decline to answer a pertinent question is unethical behavior. To continue participation in a debate without answering posed questions can be said to be dishonest. (honesty is a part of ethics) That the participant may find the question offensive is totally without merit. (I understand that civility is to be considered, but that is another topic.)To the point:Faith has made strong statements about ToE. There are indeed more, but this is sufficient for this discussion. I reference the message 236 here:
message 236(edited link as hinted to by adminemooseus, lets see if this is better)In message 236 I asked Faith to provide her definition of evolution. In order to discuss evolution, we need to see that we are using the same definition of the word. I hold this is a fair and legitimate question. I am asking, “In your mind, what are we debating?”That was on 16 December. She responded that she would maybe respond. A review of her topic list shows that while she has posted several times since, she has not responded. As I read through various treads and posts I find that she has a habit of making strong positional statements on evolution, but will not discuss her position in a manner that is suitable for a debate.In keeping with my desire for short and to the point posts I ask three questions.1. In an environment such as this EvC forum, should a participant be required to answer relevant questions? For example, what is your definition of evolution?2. I hold that if a participant does not answer, they are being unethical. Do you agree or disagree? No discussion of repercussions or ramifications, just yes or no.3. If a participant behaves in an unethical manner and yet continues to participate, are they being dishonest? Obviously, I say yes.In closing, I ask that a respondent say “Yes” or “No” to one or more of my questions, then, if desired, submit a very brief supporting position.I look forward to your responses. I have been having problems with my computer and my ISP, so if I do not respond quickly, I appologize in advance. Thank you.This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-18-2005 07:10 PM

Hello Faith, This is a forum with the explicit purpose of discussing and debating evolution. You state strong opinions disparaging evolution, but you do not back them up. To continue to visit this forum and post in this forum provides more than implied consent for me (or any participant) to ask specific questions about your position on evolution. Your presence and activie participation gives me explicit permission to ask those questions. Again, that is the purpose of the forum. For you to ignore those pointed questions is uncivil.If you invoke god in your response, then I have the right to question your position on god and the right to expect an answer to my question. If you do not want those questions asked, then do not use god as part of your answer. To refuse to answer questions about your supporting position is uncivil. You slammed evolution. One of the tennants of a discussion is to ensure all participants are discussing the same topic. To ask for your definition of evolution is fair and reasonable. In this thread, by using that defense, you are avoiding the question.

Hello Adminnemooseus,
For some reason a click on the peek option within your response yields nothing but a simple "bonk" on my computer that seems to tell me I cannot do that. The link will not take me to the target. I will look around and try to find the problem.

You are exactly right. I disabled popups for this site and now I think I have the link right.
Thank you.Oops, I enabled popups for this site, they were disabled for everyone. I don't like the darn things, but this site seems to be, umm, ethical in that respect. {OK everyone - More than enough of this at this topic. Anymore should go to some "Practice Makes Perfect" topic. - Adminnemooseus}{Modified subtitle to include the " - End of digression, I hope" part. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-18-2005 07:14 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-18-2005 07:22 PM

You are right. To attempt to lay out a whole slew of rules like that and to enforce them would be impractical. Just the same, as I think you may agree, the topic needs to be aired.

Hello Purpledawn,You are right on several counts. When I started this thread I should have left out references to Faith and the particular set of posts that led me to action. The opening post should have posed the questions without reference posts or persons and established the position of the members of this forum. While I hold my position to be reasonable, my method clouded the fundamental issue.Please allow me to refocus. For the short term, please forgive and forget that I made any reference to any person on my OP. I ask that every reader chime in and answer the three questions. The first is the most important.1. In an environment such as this EvC forum, is a person obligated to answer relevant questions? For example, what is your definition of evolution? (edited to change from required to obligated)2. I hold that if a participant does not answer, they are being unethical. Do you agree or disagree? No discussion of repercussions or ramifications, just yes or no.3. If a participant behaves in an unethical manner and yet continues to participate, are they being dishonest? Obviously, I say yes.This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-18-2005 11:22 PM

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Hello Nighttrain,
You are right. But I suspect the a good reply is usually good even when many days late.I am often surprised at the quick flurry of posts. Then I might hit refresh and see another comment before I have had time to log off. Catch as catch can.Thanks for your comments.

Hello robinrohan,
This will be interesting. It seems the debate is between the two of you and I have the impression that by the rules of this forum it should be limited to you two. I do have a suggestion. First order of business, establish the topic of the discussion.Each participant should define the word "evolution" and the phrase "theory of evolution." The definition should be in your own words, not a quote pasted in from some reference.Second suggestion: There will be numerous sub-topics and points made. Don't clutter up posts will multiple points and long winded explanations, make one or two points in a post, make them short ane clear, and see where it goes.That first request is the core initiator of this thread and of your debate. Faith make claims, but she does not know the words she uses much less know the topic. Debating a topic when the participants do not agree on the topic will come to no useful conclusion.No need to respond, use my suggestions or not as you choose. I will be watching the debate.Good luck.

Hello purpledawn, I take a differing view. Yes, this is a formal debate. This forum has a clear and stated purpose. This forum has clear and stated rules. (Recognizing that the rules are not comprehensive) Topics are declared for each thread. Moderators try to keep threads on topic. While Robert’s rules are not specified, it is formal just the same.There are implicit rules in conversation. One of them is that when you make a claim, you are obligated to explain your position and substantiate it. Imagine you and I are having a discussion and I declare that you are full of crap. Imagine that I insist that you accept my position and expect you to believe my position. (A bit arrogant?) Imagine further that I will not explain my position. Am I playing by the rules?Now remember that I have the opportunity to stick my opinion into your conversations without others without your permission such that you really cannot ignore it.You would probably hold that my behavior is odious. And you would be right. And how would you feel if I persistantly and flagarently behaved in that manner?This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-20-2005 01:52 AM

Hello purpledawn,
The hour is late, I cannot sleep, and so must make this short and go to bed anyway. I did not use my imaginary conversation to hide a slam at you. I truely did mean it to illistrate a point. While I disagree with your position, I am impressed with the things you say and the quality of your positions. I fear that I did not make the perspective of my post clear.In quick summary, I feel that Faith makes unwarrented statements and will not defend them, and will not justify them. She puts her comments in and takes offense when she is called to task. Then she runs off to other threads and makes the same types of posts. When it comes to simple questions such as, "How do you define evolution?" (consider in the context of the posts) she should be required to answer.Thanks for your comments. If I did sound as though I was hiding a slam at you, then I do appologize. That was not my intent.

Hello purpledawn,I do not propose any specific action. I want to clarify obligations that people have when they enter debates and conversations such as those here. And that is in part that any active member does have an obligation to answer topic related questions. Topic related questions do include any opinions stated and points made to support their position.I will reconsider my actions IAW rule 10.Thanks for your post.