Outline

1. Part I: Lying
   1. Introduction
   2. An Illustration from an Online Debate
   3. Conclusion
2. Part II: Obligation to Accept the Truth
   1. Introduction
   2. An Illustration Continued
   3. Color Code Reference
   4. Conclusion

Why Morals Are Important In Debates

(Note: This was originally an online Blog entry)

PART I: LYING

Introduction

A lot of time people commonly assume that during debates and argument, that the Laws of Logic can be divorced from any moral laws that govern one’s conduct. Just as the laws of logic are important and the foundation to argumentation and rational debates, so too are morals in debates and any worldview that denies the existence of objective morals would also undermine the pre-condition necessary for debates and rational persuasion.

An Illustration from an Online Debate

Case in point: During March 2006, this author engaged in an online debate about the war in Iraq. It is not the aim of this article to debate about the justness of the war in Iraq. Rather, this debate is used here as an example of why ethics and morals (specifically, not lying and making things up!) are important in any meaningful debates regardless if you are for or against the War.

Out of all the assertions and statements this one individual made during the debate, one that particular bothered this author the most was a claim that appeared blatantly false: He (we shall call him Jack) charged that Marines have systematically raped Iraqi Women. Jack’s proof, in his own words, was the following:

"I have heard numerous stories from the mouth of marines themselves about how they pickup Iraqi women and rape them as well as bringing in the mothers of Iraqi men and threatening to rape them in front of them if they do not confess to terror."

Note the above that Jack claimed that he knew Marines raped Iraqi Women because he heard “numerous?accounts from “the mouths of Marines themselves? This was, according to Jack, the basis of his claim. My response to him was the following:

"RESPONSE: Do you know these marines who out of their mouths admitted rape? This is the first time I have heard of any US military member actually confessing and testifying that they have conducted rape upon Iraqi women. Out of all the statements and assertions you made, this is perhaps the most emotionally charging. Who are these Marines? Email them their names and ranks to me BECAUSE I WILL MAKE SURE PERSONALLY MYSELF THAT THE MARINE CORPS KNOWS ABOUT THIS AND I WILL PRAY THAT GOD WILL BRING A SWIFT RETRIBUTION TO SUCH EVILS. What you are asserting here if it is true is a WAR CRIME. No matter if it was three years ago or last week, a WAR CRIME IS A WAR CRIME. AGAIN, these charges are so outlandish but if you SPEAK THE TRUTH provide the names of confess up to it for the SAKE OF JUSTICE."

When pressed for him to further justify his “proof?it is interesting how Jack responds.

To which he answered:

"I spoke to them on anonymous terms, and not in person."

Here we can see how morals (specifically truth telling) matters.

First off, it must be asked, how could one have HEARD (his own word) from the "MOUTHS OF MARINES" yet did not speak to them "IN PERSON"? Perhaps they told him “with their mouths? over the phone? Then again, how anonymous would these marines be then? How did he find their numbers to begin with of these “anonymous? marines?

Any explanation would indeed be an acrobatic stunt and play on what certain words mean.

Yet, You would think that a guy who hates so much these American troops (as seen in the context of the debate) to the point that he possess the desire of "getting a gang of Iroonis together to go and rape these troops family and girlfriends/wives in response" (his own words) would at the least make the effort to try to get their names when he was talking to them (which require less effort by the way than his desire to go raping himself) so that these alleged Marines would get in trouble!

Further, even if I granted this premise as true, yet if he "spoke to them on anonymous terms" and also "not in person", how does he know they were Marines? How could he be sure that they were not some wannabes pimple face high school kid instead of a real marine? What was it epistemologically that would justify or warrant his belief that they were indeed Marines?

Jack also gave links to graphic disturbing pictures on the web that were allegedly Americans raping Iraqis; besides the fact that these pictures were blurry and unclear, the uniforms that the "soldiers" had wore green Jackets whereas American troops wore Tri-Color Desert Uniforms and Digitalized Utilities in Iraq. Even if I were to grant that these were American soldiers somehow wearing Green uniform in the middle of a desert, the Jackets were not even American patterns and were too thick to be either our Gore-Tex or Blouse! These pictures were not Americans (!!!!) but I would be led to believe that they were fakes and the anti-war websites description of these pictures was not true neither but is rather deceptive.

His evidence that Marines raping Iraqis were not only weak: I think I could make a better case arguing that the evidence are deliberate lies (lying in the sense that one is fabricating evidence that one made up whether conscious or unconsciously) with both the sick anti-war website and also Jack himself. Seeing in the context of the debate how much Jack was fueled by hate, it was both sad and pathethic and this probably blinded him a lot during the debate.

It is also sad when PEOPLE have to fabricate evidences for there conclusion; I will call it what it is: Lying.

Conclusion

And when truth and falshood is confused for one another, it makes the debate and discussion useless

People tend to divorce morals and ethics away from logic and reason; Van Til, a Christian defender of the faith was right when he pointed out that logic is itself ethical; without the moral underpinning, logic, reason and rational discussion would be meaningless

PART II: Obligation to Accept the Truth

Introduction

As we have seen in Part I, lying and fabrication undermine the meaningfulness of any rational discussion.

In addition, without the moral (in the sense that one ought or is obligated) underpinning, argumentation would be meaningless; In fact, the laws of Logic I would even argue is in one sense, a form of moral laws.

For when an argument is valid and true, one MUST be obligated and OUGHT to accept the logical conclusion.

An Illustration Continued

Yet sometimes we see that no matter how good the evidence, a person can still reject a conclusion and (given our Biblical commitment) this rejection is clearly WRONG (SUPPRESION OF TRUTH: SEE ROMANS 1:18-21) As stated before, this writer hopes that this article would transcend beyond the war in Iraq and serve as an example of why morals and ethics are important in rational discussion, even if it does not pertain specifically to theology.

COLOR CODE REFERENCE

RED= Jack's first response

BLUE= my first response

GREEN=Jack's Second response

The same guy, Jack whom we mentioned earlier in Part I, also in the debate suggested that it was Americans that bombed an important Shiite Sacred Mosque that was fairly recent while the debate ensued. Again, this author thought this charge by Jack was outrageous. Besides committing the logical fallacy of arguing from silence, Jack also defended his assertion saying,

"no Muslim, Shiia or Sunni, regardless of sectarian disagreements, would ever bomb a Mosque. A Mosque is holy to both Sunni and Shiia regardless of sect."

To which this author responded to this premise for his argument:

RESPONSE: Is it impossible to conceive of the idea that any Muslims would attack a mosque? What happened after the Golden Mosque bombings? As I quote:

“Shia Arab reaction to the bombing of the Golden Mosque has resulted in damage to at least eight Sunni mosques, and the death of over fifty Sunni Arabs.?Note here that the above was quoted from the Assyrian International News

Agency, not Fox News from this link:

http://www.aina.org/news/20060223122939.htm

And:

“Over the past 48 hours, dozens of Sunni mosques across Iraq have been machine-gunned or desecrated in other ways. At least two were burnt to the ground in Baghdad. According to the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), 168 Sunni mosques have been attacked, 10 Sunni clerics murdered and 15 others kidnapped since the bombing.?

(http://www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=3029)

NOTE: Notice here that the reference to two separate sources: One which was Iraqi Assyrian and the other being Asian Tribune

He responded back with this:

“I can tell you right now that no Sunni or Shiia would bomb or shoot at a mosque, regardless of sect, because both find Mosques holy, even if their rival owns one...this is coming from a Middle-Easterner himself, so you can take my word for it, or you can take fox news's word who knows nothing about my people or whats happening over there.?/font>