I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of ____ (such and such a reformed message board, seeking to promote unity) for the great debating techniques I have acquired amongst them. First of all let me say how much I have already profited from the ‘I don’t want to argue about this: those who do are simply holding to a point of pride’ technique. This is the kind of pre-emptive strike that promotes unity while at the same time, establishing one’s own humility a priori. To assault the bastion is merely to make a show of divisive pride. No argument is necessary or even possible beyond this point; the debate has been skillfully channelled from a potential source of ongoing dispute into a dead end of dominant meekness. This also works, as I have learned from another reformed message board, with an appeal to the reflex action of the 'old man'. 'The old man won't like this: the old man wants to reject it' etc; thus settling the terms of the discussion from the start, with objection as a function of the sin nature. Calling people ‘gnostics’ and at the same time ‘rationalists’ is a solid VanTilian argument, asserting both extremes at once without compromising either in a mealy mouthed intelligibility, and embracing the paradox. Meanwhile writing off an argument as something you’ve ‘heard before’ is a beautiful way to avoid direct confrontation, while at the same time, avoiding indirect confrontation also. Moreover it suggests that should you choose to respond, the other person would be as wearied as you are. While at the same time suggesting that truth is novelty, and novelty, truth. This is all we know on earth and all we need to know. Bottom line: if enough people have already thought of it, it can't be true. ‘I don’t even know you’ suggests an unwillingness to engage in disagreement without a previous ten year history of gut to gut wrenching intimacy, or at least personal testimony from the last three employers. Moreover it casts suspicion on the character of the unknown party, who is so lightly willing to enter into adverse relations without a commitment. ‘You should be ashamed of yourself’ suggests such a deficiency of the Spirit in the other person, and such an abundant indwelling in yourself, that no matter what the other person says in reply it looks like he is resisting the conviction you have fallen under so heavily on his behalf. In short, while you are so zealously convinced of his shortcomings, there is no way he can stand against you. This leaves him no option but to sit down; and unity will be restored. All of these techniques are admirable, useful, effective, and most of all promoting of unity. But accusing people of being two dimensional in the bonds of peace is the best. (“I'm not casting a slur on your intelligence or anything: I'm just saying.... you're one dimension short of a fully categorical reality.”) |
Clever. I'll seek to not apply these modes of argument when debating.