"Damien, I stumbled upon your "confrontation with a Street preacher", and was impressed with how easily you presented your argument. Your argument was very logical and effective. How did you develop this line of questioning? Is it the Socratic method or some other debate technique?" - Challenger
My response, thanks, I have my own style. I am a rationalist who uses reasonable skepticism, not a skeptic using rationalism. I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching. A general thinking in all “My Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology theorizing” involves some expression of Justificationism. As in, I require a worthy argument, that is justified with a good warrant(s), quality rich with valid and reliable reason and evidence that is connected to the accuracy of the truth claimed. A Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality. Whereas, a Shallow Thinker: uses undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking.
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
My style when doing atheist outreach is basically (REMS) to challenge with valid and reliable reason and evidence with a “reflective equilibrium” to what appears to be, has some high likelihood of being or has some strong confirmation.
My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:
*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)
Here is my "confrontation with a Street preacher"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7voWUkJnA