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

Your link is to the "Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed" topic.In that topic is your message 236, which in turn links to the How do you define the word Evolution? topic.The content of that message 236 is: Adminnemooseus

---

Relevant? It wasn't relevant where you first brought up the ToE, it was off topic. I also see no obligation to answer a particular post if I am confronted with a dozen other posts to me -- seems to me I ought to be allowed to chose whom to debate. And I also see no obligation to post to a particular thread, AND I don't see the relevance of your question about the definition either. The usual definition is a change in the frequency of alleles. I've spoken to that definition here and there. No. A common definition around here to discredit the opposition. One gets called unethical and dishonest for simply declining to engage in discussion, even with a person who is known to be extremely rude and not very knowledgeable too perhaps. Not necessarily only yourself. For the above reasons I believe this is uncivil and unfair. You have to have a person's consent to engage in dialogue with you in the first place.

In a one on one debate, then I agree.In a 'free for all' which is the nature of this forum, this makes such rules impractical, though I believe that in order for the 'sub debate' to advance, the statements you made are generally fair...the opponent can bow out of the sub debate, at any time with no ethical obligations to continue.

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.

Peek opens a separate window. Your comp may be set up to consider that a pop-up and block it.

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.

Everybody questions my position on God as it is, no big deal there. I've had a lot to say on evolution, there's no reason for me to have to say anything on the subject to a particular person on demand.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-18-2005 08:00 PM

If this thread is based on message 236, personally I think you are out of line. I believe Faith answered you in the next post. Faith said maybe.1. Faith's post mentioning the TOE was not to you and off topic.
2. Your post asking Faith to give her definition in another thread was off topic.
3. At that point Faith had the choice of taking up the challenge or not. Faith chose not to.Faith answered maybe, but chose not to apparently. We have that choice and I don't feel that there is anything uncivil or dishonest about it.Just because you wanted a debate in another thread on a specific subject doesn't mean Faith has to go there. Faith didn't make the comment in that thread.Just because someone throws down the gauntlet, doesn't mean we have to pick it up.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I agree with some of that, purpledawn, but not much.1. I don't see the relevance of Faith's post not being directed at bkelly--an assertion is an assertion; this was no Great Debate.2. Members are encouraged to take side discussions to other threads: bkelly did not raise an issue of evolution, Faith did. There was nothing "off-topic" or inappropriate about inviting her to take that discussion elsewhere--quite the contrary. Faith's comment was clearly off-topic; bkelly's response was not.3. If being off-topic immunizes one to an obligation to respond when challenged, then I understand more fully why it happens so often.Faith has in the past refused to grant that proponents of the ToE believe their own assertions, though more recently she has claimed umbrage that anyone would assert that she does not believe her own.The off-topic post that riled bkelly was one where she asserted that the ToE was a hall of mirrors, and that science was being misused to support it--that the theory is, in fact, a "hoax" and a "fabrication."She repeatedly salts her posts on other topics with such insinuations, as do other opponents of the ToE here. Here is the passage in question, with emphases added: I suppose at least "delusion" leaves some tatters of integrity on one's bones, unlike "hoax" and "fabrication."Was Faith obligated to engage the other thread? No, and bkelly should be content with all her refusal implies about the refuser.Uncivil and dishonest? You bet.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

Sigh, purpledawn gave the reasonable response to this, and I don't want to get into it at all, but at least I have to say that I haven't Can you link where I said that? I can't imagine saying that evos don't BELIEVE their own assertions. Of course they do. I've also said I can understand its persuasiveness. And I suggested a way one should go about verifying the assertion, which I highly recommend to all.{AbE: In other words, there's no fraud, just self-deception, even self-deception of a high order one could say.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-18-2005 11:01 PM

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

I agree that if someone thinks they can toss in wild, unsupported assertions and then decide it is "off-topic" or they don't feel like answering questions they are not playing fair.They are being intellectually dishonest. It is one of a number of reasons not to bother discussing things with such an individual.