When one person speaks in facts and the other in myths the discussion goes no where . Therefore it depends on what the discussion is. The ability to turn a debaters own facts or statements against them is a solid way to win a debate.

I am not particularly argumentative. But I have thought "what sanctimonious bullshit" more than a few times.

I don't get in those debates. There's really no point.

Isn't this the entire point of a debate? We "attack" their arguments/beliefs for said things. And they "attack" ours. A true debate is two people who share conflicting views trying to sway the other side to their side.

I don't see how one can effectively explain why Christianity is flawed, wrong, misguided, selfish, or a variety of other things. Without talking about what Christians stand for, and how there's a better way.

When someone is obnoxious in style and content while expressing their beliefs, it is such sweet pleasure to get them to admit that they said or believe A, then proceed to rhetorically club them over the head with their remarks.

It is very easy just usign the divide between doctrine and dogma. However there is a lto of doctrine that contradicts other doctrines too.

Not against THEM, but against their argument.

Good conversation starter, but I don't like how the question is phrased. How else are you going to convince someone other than to rely on their own beliefs about the world? If they don't think killing humans is wrong, how do you convince them it is? Now, if you already know they think killing humans is wrong, yet they are arguing for the killing of a human, then how else do you progress the conversation apart from appealing to their own beliefs? I don't use it against THEM; I use it against their bad ideas when I know it will work and bring about greater good.

No because I only debate using real facts and their belief in fairy tales shouldn't affect or effect what I have to say.

I find that the average proselytiser usually has less than average learning about the bible or the history of their own religion. I did once have the tables turned on me by a Catholic Priest, He was a delight to argue against, although neither of us was convinced by the other. It's not about changing their mind, but about honing my own argument and possibly presenting the views to the bystanders.

Yes, but it is conditional. As other people have referenced, many Christians secular and religious beliefs encroach so far into the public forum it is unavoidable. It is also a drop back and punt defense they use when losing a discussion with logic. As a rule I try to stay in reality. Great question.

Christian dogma / theology / doctrine / ideology -- particularly the fundamentalist variety -- is so self contradictory that it's quite common for a believer to disprove their own point without realizing it. My typical rejoinder is along the lines of, "by your logic, then ..." and their usual response (if they don't just pretend you didn't point that out) is to say that's not what they meant and you're twisting their words. But that's par for the course. Their "arguments" are dishonest, equivocating, dismissive, and non-sequitur on a regular basis. Some of us call it "lying for Jesus".

While I appreciate Freedompath's notion that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (in a twice nothing is still nothing sort of way), I am, increasingly, openly derisive of Christian "morality" these days and so if they are raising a moral or ethical question or gabbling on about "sin" I have a tendency to savage them anymore. Their support for people like Trump and Roy Moore who molest women and young girls, has just been a bridge too far. They no longer deserve ANY benefit of the doubt. Their perfidy is a direct assault on every civil person's way of life.

It really depends on the debate.

Every time you debate for real you attack someone's beliefs. That's the name of the game. If you're good you use them against them. I'm confused about the last option.

Only to point out absurdities and hypocritical points of view.

I do not waste my time or another's time to debate nonsense.

A good debate should explore all available possibilities to illuminate new questions. So I use it for the both of us, not against them.