Engaging the Debate
Foreward	This is my attempt at establishing a Flowchart on the Debating Process, which can be immediately applied in IRC or in every-day life. My goal is to be able to make this section so easy to use that users can IRC in one window and have a web browser in another window, and even go as far as cut and pasting their defenses into the IRC window. So please provide me with your feedback. Since a Flowchart can be incredibly exhaustive and detailed, I thought of breaking down a typical Debator's arguements into individual themes. Each Theme can be disarmed with a pattern of splendid logic and mirth. This kind of training would help an inexperienced Christian get into this mode of thinking, whereby it becomes a natural process. It must also be easy to read, simple to understand, and be "quick and powerful" as the Word of God says, such that it can be immediately applied. So it is important that the following material matches these requirements.
Engaging the Debate	There are many models, or Themes, that define the Debator's statements. If we break down each statement and study their individual components, you can easily isolate flaws in their logic, research, academic support, and even motivation for making the statement in the first place!
How to be a Successful Debator	Here are a few points to keep in mind, and you'll do fine! Have a Godly Debating Philosophy - Always engage the Debate with a sense of humor and joy. "The joy of the Lord shall be your strength." And also make sure you are sensitive to and filled with the Holy Spirit. "'Not by might nor by power but by My Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6). If you do it in the flesh, it will stink, because flesh stinks - especially without the fragrance of the Holy Spirit's anointing. Keep Things Simple - In 1 Cor. 1:20, it says that God has made the "wisdom" of this world to be foolishness. God has also choosen the foolish things in the world to confound the wisdom of the "wise." Evolutionist may think they can map the "morphing" of physical limbs and body shape, etc. of creatures over time, but what about the complexities of the brain and its millions of functions and their inter- relationships? A Life of Prayer - If you purposely haven't had a good prayer life, then go back and get one! Always Avoid Foolish Disputes - Titus 3:9-11 says, "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitbale and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second adminition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned."
Theme 1	The Debator makes a statement based on something that supposedly happened in history. e.g. "Christianity is full of murder. Hitler was a Christian." Sounds tough to answer? Not really! Let's break this down. Here, "Christianity is full of murder" is the Allegation, and "Hitler was a Chrisitan" is the Reasoning behind the allegation. Now you have two things to attack. The Allegation and the Reasoning. Require reputable proof - Demand proof of Debator's Allegation. "What are your historical and academic sources. Did you actually look that up for yourself?" If the Debator is not able to cite historical and academic sources, then ask the Debator, "Are you the kind of person that believes anything they teach you, without researching it yourself? Isn't that 'blind faith'? Even when your professors conduct a class, you're supposed to go home and do the reading for the next day!" If the Debator is actually able to cite a historic source, then ask, "Who is the author? Did he/she base that Allegation on any reputable research or dependable records, or did he/she make that up?" If the historic source sounds reasonable, then ask, "How did you know that the author wasn't already on some anti-Christian bias? Common sense dictates that you cannot make up a historic fact based on so little findings. What other dependable sources do you base this allegation?" Logic from Comparing Two Statements - Does the Debator's Allegation even sound logical? Have Debator look at his/her own Allegation. Ask the Debator: what does the Reasoning have to do with the Allegation. "What does Hitler have to do with Christianity? Hitler mass-murdered the Jews. The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Simple logic shows that these are contrasts. I'm afraid your logic is severely flawed." Numeric Research - Ask the Debator if he/she has done any numeric search. "So Christianity is full of murder. Have you talked to all the murders in the world and found out they are Christian?" This statement sounds foolish, but so does the Allegation. If the Debator points out that it sounds foolish, then say, "So does your allegation. You ought not to speak so authoratatively when you make assumptions on the masses without investigating the individual numerics like most reputable researches do."
Theme 2	The debator makes an Allegation that sounds like an attack rather than a well-mannered debate. "Christianity is blind faith!" "Christians are hypocrites!" "Televangelists are all money-sucking leeches." Identify Motive - Ask the person nicely, "Are you here for a well-mannered debate, or are you here just to slam Christianity." Since the Debator has come to challenge you, you dictate the terms of the debate. "Let's first off agree to be polite and cordial and not make any personal- or mass-accusations. Can we agree to calmly discuss this as civilized adults?" Numeric Research - Look for words like "all" and "always." Ask the Debator if he/she has done any numeric search. "So Christians are hypocrites. Have you talked to all the hypocrites in the world and found out they are Christian?" This statement sounds foolish, but so does the Allegation. If the Debator points out that it sounds foolish, then say, "So does your allegation. You ought not to speak so authoratatively when you make assumptions on the masses without investigating the individual numerics like most reputable researches do." If the Debator says, "Televangelists are all money-sucking leeches." then ask, "I don't know. Have you watched all of them? There are many honorable preachers in the world. Are you discounting all of them just because you don't like few you saw on TV? Did you know that the New York Times exposed some con-artists who were not even Christians but they pretended to be preachers? So you can't hate Christianity because those who poisoned your attitude towards it have been non- Christians too!" Make his Allegation your Defense - "Christianity is blind faith!" Let's apply that "blind faith" logic back on him. Find out why he thinks it's blind faith. "Are you the kind of person that believes anything they teach you in school without researching it yourself? Isn't that 'blind faith'? Even when your professors conduct a class, you're supposed to go home and do the reading for the next day! At least we Christians have to study our Bible and research why the Bible is true." If he/she challenges you here further, e.g. "Oh yeah? Well how do you know the Bible is real anyways?" you can go to step 1. IDENTIFY MOTIVE. Or you can answer him/her.
Theme 3	"How do you know...?" is a prevalent question. "How do you know the Bible is true?" "How do you know God really exists?" If you've determined that the Debator is asking sincerely, this is a good opportunity to share with him/her that Christianity is not blind faith, but there is a solid reasoning behind that faith. This will then improve the Debator's opinion of Chrisitans. Explain the Logic Behind the Situation Ask the person, "Do you remember what the Scientific Theory is?" Then explain the Three Steps of the Scientific Method, "You form a Hypothesis. Then you carry out an Experiment in a controlled environment within the parameters of that hypothesis, and then you document the Results and compare them with that which you expected from your hypothesis." This is not a verbatim quote, but seldom would scientists disagree with this statement. "If the Results fail to more or less match the Hypothesis in the controlled Experiment, the Hypotheis is probably incorrect. However, if they do match, then the Hypothesis is probably correct. Map the Scientific Method to your personal experience. "I arrived at my faith this way: God exists - that's my Hypothesis. Then I placed my faith in Jesus Christ and His dying on the Cross for my sins, repented, and yielded my life sincerely to Christ's full and loving control. Those were the parameters of the Experiement that I had to fulfill. You know what? All my sins are forgiven and I feel His peace and joy, and Christ lives in my heart. These Results match the Hypothesis." Map the Scientific Method to Debator's Personal Experience, if any. Some might say, "I tried Christianity, but it didn't work." Find out if he met the Parameters of the Hypothesis. (Be sensitive. Some people were former Christians, completely hurt and burned out because they somehow arrived at a point where they could not feel God and nobody cared for them. They "did" all the things they were supposed to do. These people need a special ministry. See the article "How to Handle Difficult People." Be very polite and unforceful. "What exactly did you do?" Now you have an opportunity to hear someone out, thereby turning the debate into a personal-attention counseling opportunity!