Let's see. It works especially when one person is arguing from one frame of mind, and the other person from another.

Example:

I hold my beliefs in God close to my heart. There is no doubt. To me, it is absolute truth that I was made by intelligent design and am not a contingency. However, someone asked me "how can you believe in God when God doesn't like gay people.?"


Here's how this thread comes into play.

#1...I don't agree that God "doesn't like gay people." But, the person making the argument set that as a ground rule.

How?

They stated, "God/the bible doesn't accept gay people so how can you be a dedicated Christian?"

In essence, they're suggesting that my faith isn't real and that I'm wasting my time.

If their initial statement is true, "that God doesn't like gays," then every statement they make following it has to be true by default.

Here's the problem. I hold my beliefs as true and real. They look at this as a philosophical argument. So, to me, it's personal in that I don't accept their conclusions about my faith. Consequently, I can't win that argument because I don't agree with his initial statement.

See?

Now, I could win the argument if I agree with his initial statement and then dissect it. The problem is, I'm not willing to compromise my beliefs to win an argument against someone who is wrong and flat-out ignorant.


Get it?

__________________

Youtube Video for my song "CARRY ON"