"The Muddy Mess"--a debating tactic

[Former Believer]

The Muddy Mess is a debating tactic that basically works like this:  If you don't have a good answer, write a lot of confusing prose which is difficult to understand, conflates various issues, contains ad hominem attacks, quotes scripture, addresses strawmen, and which attempts to send the conversation in a tangential direction by asking you a question that isn't tightly related to the discussion at hand.  Sometimes, flowery, emotional prose is inserted to attempt to mask the lack of substantive content.  Of course, not all muddy messes contain all of these elements, but a combination of them is present. 

Can anyone relate?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

No. That is the standard response atheists make when confronted with facts that show that they have conflated a number of not-simple matters into one messy "simple" question.

In other words, they have asked a question that, if answered accurately (assuming it can be teased apart), is too far above their current knowledge base to understand. Hence it all seems muddy to them.

[Airyaman]

Like a fly drawn to dung...

[Former Believer]

No. That is the standard response atheists make when confronted with facts that show that they have conflated a number of not-simple matters into one messy "simple" question.

In other words, they have asked a question that, if answered accurately (assuming it can be teased apart), is too far above their current knowledge base to understand. Hence it all seems muddy to them.

I'm not talking about giving an answer that requires a detailed response the appropriate attention it deserves.  I am referring to what I stated in the OP.

[Ratman]

No. That is the standard response atheists make when confronted with facts that show that they have conflated a number of not-simple matters into one messy "simple" question.

In other words, they have asked a question that, if answered accurately (assuming it can be teased apart), is too far above their current knowledge base to understand. Hence it all seems muddy to them.

That is such a debating tactic by you Maggie.  I am beginning to recognize what you are doing now.  This points to exactly what FB is talking about.  So many zings in there too.

If you took away all your zings at the other person, then maybe we could understand you more.

[Pastafarian]

Yup Ratty.

Yup FB, I've done the same thing myself too, though I can't remember when last I was aware of it. I definitely remember falling into that trap on WWGHA. I'd be typing away and suddenly realise I'm talking s**t and then I'd just stop

[acctnt_shan]

If you don't have a good answer,

Maybe you think you do?

write a lot of confusing prose which is difficult to understand,

It's likely that someone is trying to convert thoughts into writing and failing, or that it makes sense to them because it represents their own thought process.  I don't think too many people here deliberately write hard-to-understand posts.

conflates various issues,

Perhaps the issues seem very closely related to the poster.  If in their own thought process, the various issues seem relevant to making their point, I see no problem with this.

contains ad hominem attacks,

Obviously you should try to avoid attacking the person you are discussing an issue with, so I can agree with this one.

quotes scripture,

When debating religious issues, I don't see how this is a problem anymore than an atheist quoting a scientific article or some other source.

addresses strawmen,

I think this is another one that could sometimes be unintentional.  Perhaps the person misinterpreted what was intended by the original comment, and all that's necessary is to clarify.  If it's being done intentionally, then I agree that it's annoying/frustrating.

and which attempts to send the conversation in a tangential direction by asking you a question that isn't tightly related to the discussion at hand.

As I stated above, for some people the tangential issue seems highly relevant.  I don't think this always happens with ill-intent, as many discussions within this forum are prone to wandering in different directions.   

Sometimes, flowery, emotional prose is inserted to attempt to mask the lack of substantive content.

Can you give any examples of this being done intentionally?  I can't think of any instances in this forum where I've seen it occur (that doesn't mean it's not true, I just can't recall anything like it).

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Shan, you have done a good job of dealing with a number of issues that arise regularly but what FB, et al. are really trying to do is claim that every time they don't get the answer they think is obvious, we are obfuscating. We see it all over the board and most recently in the threads about human sacrifice in the Old Testament and God's communication skills. Neither of those is a simple subject. In the case of the issue of human sacrifice, it is highly complex and, since the Old Testament covers a good 2000 years of history and legend, there isn't one simple answer about who did it, why, and under what circumstances. But those who brought it up thought they had a sure fire winner-- a killer argument that could not possible be faulted. They were wrong, of course, and aren't taking it well.

They also don't get that a single statement that contains a claim may require pages to answer. So when some one claims that "Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US" those ten words require hundreds, maybe thousands of words in rebuttal. Why? Because "yes he is"; "no, he isn't" aren't an answer. Neither is "Well, he was born in Hawaii". No, this claim is a complicated matter of constitutional law and requires looking at that law, seeing how it has been interpreted in case law, and then seeing how this specific case of Obama fits into that. You can't do that in 10 or 12 words. Constitutional law is complex and if anyone is going to answer this question intelligently and fully, it isn't going to be done in 3 or 4 simple sentences.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

No. That is the standard response atheists make when confronted with facts that show that they have conflated a number of not-simple matters into one messy "simple" question.

In other words, they have asked a question that, if answered accurately (assuming it can be teased apart), is too far above their current knowledge base to understand. Hence it all seems muddy to them.

I'm not talking about giving an answer that requires a detailed response the appropriate attention it deserves.  I am referring to what I stated in the OP.

So am I. Let's look at what you wrote:

The Muddy Mess is a debating tactic that basically works like this:  If you don't have a good answer, write a lot of confusing prose which is difficult to understand,

There are people who don't write well here. However, your lack of understanding is not necessarily the measure of whether or not the prose is difficult to understand. Do you know enough about the subject to understand the answer when you get one? If you raise a difficult issue that you do not, in fact, understand well, it is pretty certain that you will get an answer you won't understand without some back and forth clarification. Do other people understand the the piece of prose you find confusing? If so, the writer has not failed to write clearly.

quotes scripture,

So let me see. We are talking about Christianity, someone makes a claim about what it teaches and we can't go to the source to refute those claims?

(the Muddy argument) attempts to send the conversation in a tangential direction by asking you a question that isn't tightly related to the discussion at hand.

I haven't seen this. I have seen attempts to get you all to narrow overly broad claims but I haven't seen this. Example?

Sometimes, flowery, emotional prose is inserted to attempt to mask the lack of substantive content.

I would need to see an example of this. I haven't seen anything of the sort from any one who regularly posts here. What I have seen time after time after time is atheists making huge claims, often in offensive terms, and then getting indignant when they get their rumps handed to them. That horrid fate can be avoided with some tact and a willingness to learn.

[Former Believer]

Maggie, the point I'm making is very simple.  People, whether consciously or not, adding a lot of fluff to responses which includes tangential issues, ad homs, excessive quotation of scripture, flowerly language, appeals to emotionstrawmen, red herrings, etc, etc, etc, so that the issue at hand becomes confused or is not addressed.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

It is an Internet forum. Are there written tests one is supposed to pass before being allowed to play? Why sweat it?

[Former Believer]

(the Muddy argument) attempts to send the conversation in a tangential direction by asking you a question that isn't tightly related to the discussion at hand.

I haven't seen this. I have seen attempts to get you all to narrow overly broad claims but I haven't seen this. Example?

This is extremely common.  I'm not going to make this thread personal by identifying people who do this, but keep your eyes open.  It happens frequently.

[Rox]

Can anyone relate?

Yup. 

[Airyaman]

Shan, you have done a good job of dealing with a number of issues that arise regularly but what FB, et al. are really trying to do is claim that every time they don't get the answer they think is obvious, we are obfuscating. We see it all over the board and most recently in the threads about human sacrifice in the Old Testament and God's communication skills. Neither of those is a simple subject. In the case of the issue of human sacrifice, it is highly complex and, since the Old Testament covers a good 2000 years of history and legend, there isn't one simple answer about who did it, why, and under what circumstances. But those who brought it up thought they had a sure fire winner-- a killer argument that could not possible be faulted. They were wrong, of course, and aren't taking it well.

We were only "wrong" because we did not agree with your viewpoint. I asked you to show how something was not eisegesis and you provided someone else's interpretation that was again, eisegesis. In the end the only people who did not take it well were you and QM because you claimed a victory where there was none.

[Pastafarian]

It is an Internet forum. Are there written tests one is supposed to pass before being allowed to play? Why sweat it?

Let's start here then.
Sarcasm.
More sarcasm.
Belittling the activity being talked about (foruming).
Having done that, the way is open for the dismissive, "why not just let it go?"

Icwudyoudidthere. Do you?

[kevin]

one common internet debate strategy is "black-holing the hard stuff."

when a post makes more than one point at a time, one way of avoiding having to respond to the awkward bits is simply to ignore them--to drop them into a black hole--and to address only the stuff for which one has a favorable answer. done skillfully, the awkward questions are safely sidestepped.

one way to deal with someone who uses this tactic is to limit one's post to a single question, so that it must either be publicly answered or obviously ignored, but can't be overlooked. it makes the conversations very slow, but when you have someone who likes this trick there's no other way to pin them down.

[Kiahanie]

[.... ] 
They also don't get that a single statement that contains a claim may require pages to answer. So when some one claims that "Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US" those ten words require hundreds, maybe thousands of words in rebuttal. Why? Because "yes he is"; "no, he isn't" aren't an answer. Neither is "Well, he was born in Hawaii". No, this claim is a complicated matter of constitutional law and requires looking at that law, seeing how it has been interpreted in case law, and then seeing how this specific case of Obama fits into that. You can't do that in 10 or 12 words. Constitutional law is complex and if anyone is going to answer this question intelligently and fully, it isn't going to be done in 3 or 4 simple sentences.

If somebody wants to assert "Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US" without providing those "hundreds, maybe thousands of words" of support, then I am equally justified in saying "Yes, he is" without writing walls of text.

OTOH, if that person supports their argument with data or arguments, then to have a profitable discussion, I would probably be under some obligation to reply in detail.

[Former Believer]

It's likely that someone is trying to convert thoughts into writing and failing, or that it makes sense to them because it represents their own thought process.  I don't think too many people here deliberately write hard-to-understand posts.

I think it often is similar to "bulls**tting" when writing an exam in college.  A person doesn't have a good response so he writes as much as they can about tangential stuff that he feels comfortable talking about.  The difference between such posting and writing a college exam is that the writer of the post isn't trying to achieve a good grade by providing the best answer, so, in addition to discussing tangential issues, he also throws in an ad hom or two and/or tries to get the questioner on the defensive by asking him a question about something marginally related so that the focus shifts away from the topic at hand.

I doubt very many people say to themselves "I'm going to purposely try to make a fallacious response and spin this thing into confusion", but I'm guessing that a lot of people realize that they aren't addressing the issue when they write these sort of responses.  And, I think that some of the more saavy and more educated theists probably realize, at least on some level, that they are doing this more than others.

Perhaps the issues seem very closely related to the poster.  If in their own thought process, the various issues seem relevant to making their point, I see no problem with this.

No doubt this happens, and I have no problem with that either.  The job of whoever is debating with them, when this happens, is to share why he or she doesn't think the point is relevant and go from there.  On the other hand, I believe that sometimes tangential issues are injected because the poster doesn't have a good response to the question at hand and is seeking away to get into his comfort zone and avoid the question being asked.

When debating religious issues, I don't see how this is a problem anymore than an atheist quoting a scientific article or some other source.

I don't have a problem with people quoting the Bible either, so long as it is used judiciously and isn't a substitute for explaining one's position on a matter. 

I think this is another one that could sometimes be unintentional.  Perhaps the person misinterpreted what was intended by the original comment, and all that's necessary is to clarify.  If it's being done intentionally, then I agree that it's annoying/frustrating.

I agree.

Can you give any examples of this being done intentionally?  I can't think of any instances in this forum where I've seen it occur (that doesn't mean it's not true, I just can't recall anything like it).

The worst examples of using flowery, emotional prose occurred a year or two ago, can't even remember who the members were.  Off the top of my head, I can think of one poster that frequently makes posts that appeal to emotion.

[kevin]

me! me!

cry me a river, FB!