Framing the Argument
One of the biggest obstacles to worthwhile intellectual debate is the hopelessly dishonest and counterproductive framing of arguments.
Framing of arguments is done in politics all the time. When Cristina Page writes about abortion, she frames the debate as one of anti-sex religious fanatics versus enlightened libertarians. When Dawkins frames his argument for atheism, he frames it as one of science versus Fundamentalist “faith heads” who would kill those who don’t believe in their God. When the anti-war folks frame their arguments against war, they frame them as war for oil versus peace.
The problem is, none of these arguments address the real debates.
The abortion debate is one of the unborn fetus’ right to life versus the mother’s right to privacy. To frame it as anti-sex religious fanatics versus enlightened libertarians is a dishonest straw man argument, one that does not address the actual points of contention. Her entire book is a waste of time, because it addresses a debate that is non-existent.
When Dawkins frames his debate as one of bloodthirsty Crusaders versus science, he misses the opportunity to address the real debate. He is, like most dishonest debate framers, using a straw man. Why use a straw man? Because they are easier to pick apart then than the real opponent.
A skilled framer will frame the debate in a subtle way. They often use quotes from radicals, and try to pass those quotes off as representative of the mainstream opponent. For example, when pro-abortionist Cristina Page quotes an anti-abortionist saying, “sex is supposed to serve one purpose only: to procreate”. Is that representative of the anti-abortion position? No, and the suggestion is absurd. Likewise, atheists like Dawkins like to talk about Christian slaughters of nonbelievers. Is it relevant to the debate? No more than the slaughters of Christians by atheists Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Stalin.
All those slaughters occurred, not because of atheism or Christianity, but because of intolerance of opposing views by intolerant people. And theists today, for the most part, are not into murdering nonbelievers.
A Culture of Propagandists
The propagandist shows one side of the coin. He wants to convince you of the benefits of his ideology. It often involves a lot of deception, straw men, and framed debates.
An honest intellectual shows you both sides of the coin. His job in not to tell you which road to take, but only to show you where each road leads.
How do you detect a framed debate or a straw man? Ask the opposition what their real position is. We should always listen with an open mind to both sides of the debate; not from one source or two, but from many.
