Bruin Alliance of Skeptics and Secularists

My dad recently gave me an a page long list of ground rules for debates and arguments. While the sheet was originally intended as a guide for political debate, I find the principles discussed can be applied effectively to any debate and discussion, especially those about religion. I decided to share them with you since I found the list to be quite useful and it is reproduced verbatim below.

Ground Rules for Polemicists
by Donald Lazere

(excerpts–with parts that seem especially useful in bold-face)

[Donald Lazere's "ground rules" were directed originally to scholarly writers engaged in heated debate with professional adversaries. I've found them to be helpful for anyone engaged in political dialogue with allies or adversaries. Adapt to your own uses as writers seeking to acknowledge your worthy opponents.]

…Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents, in all of the following ways.
Identify your own ideological viewpoint and how it might bias your arguments. Having done so, show that you approach opponents’ actions and writing with an open mind, not with malice aforethought. Concede the other side’s valid arguments–preferably toward the beginning of your critique, not tacked on grudgingly at the end or in inconspicuous subordinate clauses.
Summarize the other side’s case, fully and fairly, in an account they would accept, prior to refuting it. Present it through its most reputable spokespeople and strongest formulations (not through the most outlandish statements of its lunatic fringe), using direct quotes and footnoted sources, not your own undocumented paraphrases. Allow the most generous interpretation of their statements rather than putting the worst light on them; help them make their arguments stronger when possible.
When quoting selected phrases from the other side’s texts, accurately summarize the context and tone of the longer passages and full texts in which they appear.
When you are repeating a second-hand account of events, say so–do not leave the implication that you were there and are certain of its accuracy. Cite your source and take account of its author’s possible biases, especially if the author is your ally.
In any account that you use to illustrate the opponents’ misbehavior, grant that there may be another side to the story and take pains to find out what it is. If opponents claim they have been misrepresented, give them their say and benefit of the doubt.
Be willing to acknowledge misconduct, errors, and fallacious arguments by your own allies, and try scrupulously to establish an accurate proportion of sense and reciprocity between them and those you criticize in your opponents. Do no play up the other side’s forms of power while denying or downplaying your own side’s.
Respond forthrightly to opponents’ criticisms of your own or your side’s previous arguments, without evading key points. Admit it when they make criticisms you cannot refute.
Do not substitute derision for reasoned argument and substantive evidence.

Donald Lazere, “Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney’s Truths” (College English 59.6: 661-2)

I hope we all remember that when arguing or having a discussion with someone, our goal should be to search for the truth and not to try to demonstrate ourselves as correct and others as wrong.