HOW TO RESPOND TO A BAD DISPUTE
By Claudia Kalmikov, Op-ed Contributor
Every day, we hear or read arguments; they can be found in books, newspapers, on the internet, or in news comments on television. Have you ever seen how a person can refute an accusation by making a statement without evidence? Sometimes, when we talk to other people and they do not agree with our opinion, they flatly refute ours and make their own claims without giving explanations. However, the party filing the claim is subject to proof of liability.
In addition, our character has attacked everyone, especially those who are Christians. It is not surprising that Jesus warned us in John 15:18–20 that "if the world hates you, you know that it hated you before it hated you," and "if they persecute me, they will also persecute you."
Here, what I want to show you is how to demonstrate and respond to a bad argument when someone asserts without help, attacks your personality, or tries to interrupt you in a conversation. First, let's discuss the arguments.
What's the argument?
Arguments don't always go hand in hand with shouting, and they shouldn't. In short, the set of statements, premises, or reasons that support a conclusion. In other words, the conclusion must logically follow the premise.
Errors in logic
A fallacy is an error in an argument that stems from incorrect reasoning. Some fallacies are so common that they are referred to as fallacies. I will explain one strategy and three fallacies that are most often used against Christians because my audience here is mostly Christians.
Declaration
When we talk to others about a topic and disagree with them, our position is often ignored, and our opinion is abused without argument. People draw conclusions without foundation. It's called a statement. For example, if I make a Christian claim that is supported by historical or scriptural evidence and people answer, "Oh, that's wrong," or "it never happened," what reason do I have to believe it? I would tell them they were just making statements or telling me their own opinions, but they gave me no reason to believe their claims.
If you pay attention to the comments posted under this article, as well as my other articles in the Christian Post, you will see that this is a statement and not an argument.
The Ad Hominem Lie
Let's face the fact that many people have lost self-control and decency in modern culture. It is impossible for a person to voice his opinion again without the other person calling his name or physically attacking him. We have witnessed it ourselves. In logic, calling names is an ad hominem attack on a person's character. In situations like this, one person puts forward a perspective, and the other person responds by paying attention to the first person's opinion rather than his argument. It is a debate against the individual. For example, someone criticized me for my idea of disciplining a child. I would respond by saying, "Okay. Let's say you're right and that I'm the meanest person on the planet." However, you have not settled our debate and given me reasons why I am wrong and why I should trust your point of view. You just asked for my name. What do you say to support your opinion?”
If they refrain from arguing, your response will probably be showered with many names. Since the other person has no arguments, they must use the name because that is all they have to offer, and we know that it is not our reflection.
Genetic disorders
Tell them that I'm talking to someone else to explain why I became a Christian. They might respond by saying, "Oh, you're just a Christian because you were born in the U.S. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim." It is a genetic mistake to reject my arguments based solely on my origins rather than talking about my initial arguments. In that case, my reaction is, "Okay, so what? That might be wrong. Where I come from has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. Since the resurrection happened, Christianity is right. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection associated with my place of origin. I managed to return the topic of discussion to the initial context by responding in this way.
Resemblance to a red herring
This logical fallacy occurs when the speaker distracts from the other speaker by moving on to another subject that may still have a strong connection to the one being talked about. After that, they draw conclusions on these issues, assuming that they are correct. They then think they won the dispute.
The name blueness comes from a technique used to teach hunting dogs to follow scents. To mislead the dogs, a red herring was dragged across the path. Red herring has a strong odor. Only the best dogs can retain their original scent.
On one occasion, I witnessed this happen during a city council meeting in my town. Whether or not the words "In God We Trust" are allowed in our city council chambers is a contentious issue. A man who opposed this motion stood up and began by denigrating the councilor who filed the motion. Later, he stated that the councilor had never used such words, even in his own workplace. I followed him after he sat down. I continued to give the council a reason why they should put these words into the council chamber, and then drew their attention to the fact that the person speaking before me only insulted the council members, completely changed the topic of discussion, and did not give the council a reason. why they banned "In God We Trust" in our boardrooms. This guy is wrong, like a red herring. After that, return the person to the topic of discussion. And never let them mislead you. Let them know that they are talking about other issues. You will do so if they want to talk about it in the future. However, you should concentrate on the initial topic for now. After that, examine their arguments to support their beliefs.
Christians have been defended for too long, and most people don't know how to respond. However, keep in mind that the party making the claim is responsible for the proof. When statements are made without supporting evidence, don't hesitate to ask why you or anyone else should believe them. Hold their positions. When someone calls you by name, tell the other person that your character's attack is not a problem and ask them to defend their position. If someone tries to lead you down the rabbit path, return them to the topic of discussion. When you listen well and stay focused, you can navigate the conversation and stay in the driver's seat.
[1] A Brief Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley (Stamford, CT, English Learning, 2015), p. 136–137.
Claudia is a Christian apologist, national speaker, and blogger with a Master of Arts degree in Christian apologetics from Biola University. She teaches apologetics at her church, is a team speaker for Talbot Seminary's Biola on the Road apologetics conference, and leads women's biblical research. Claudia has been a frequent guest on the Real Life, Gina Pastore, and David James Kkla radio shows in Los Angeles. She is a contributor to Women in Apologetics, and her blog posts have been published several times in the online apologetics magazine Poached Egg. After raising two now-adult sons, her focus is now on making an impact in the world for Christ, as she writes on the blog Straight Talk with Claudia K.
News Sources:https://www.christianpost.com/voices/how-to-expose-and-respond-to-bad-arguments.html
What's Your Reaction?
