I'm trying to present a style of debate which only works if you're actually right. If you follow it and you're wrong, it'll show you that you're wrong in the end.
It is my hope that even the least critical thinkers might adopt the techniques for the sake of "winning," and then find them sufficiently useful that they use them in all discussions, theological or not.
I'm trying to present a style of debate which only works if you're actually right. If you follow it and you're wrong, it'll show you that you're wrong in the end.
Basically you say that it's a technique that can be used to identify your own wrong beliefs. How many of your own wrong beliefs have you identified with it?
It is my hope that even the least critical thinkers might adopt the techniques for the sake of "winning," and then find them sufficiently useful that they use them in all discussions, theological or not.
If that's your hope than...
Inspired by the call to go forth and make rationality reign...
I've started a blog at http://www.bettertoknow.wordpress.com
It teaches discussion/debate techniques by showing them at work in a dialogue about the existence of God.
I don't expect theists to read it much, but atheists will be able to discuss theology (and everything else) more effectively with theists (and everyone else) after reading it.
With that in mind, I'd much appreciate critique of the plan and execution.
Am I thinking clearly? Am I expressing the ideas well? Am I taking too long to say things, using too great inferential distances, or strawmanning?
And on another level, am I using the wrong website to blog? Are my posts too long? Are they missing some important element? Should I be doing anything differently?