|
Post by gloryintruth on Feb 26, 2008 17:15:37 GMT -5
Now that a new sub-board has been started for NT study (great idea, by the way), I wonder if we could start another sub-board for debate. I mean "real" debate. - A debate question mutually agreed upon.
- Two debaters.
- An exchange that lasts for say, a fortnight.
- No interference from other posters who may only watch.
- Post-debate discussion from all.
- Poll - who had the stronger arguments.
Etc. For truth emerges from the conflict of debate. Some great debate topics: - Church buildings
- Christian practices
- Women preachers
- Dress code
- Reformed theology
- Calvinism \ Arminianism
- Homosexuality
- Authority in the Church
etc. I have been pushing this idea for a long while. Perhaps it could come under advisement? Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 26, 2008 17:45:15 GMT -5
GIT
I note that yet again you've got homosexuality on your mind. It just seems to keep coming up doesn't it? Kind of inevitably! I suppose it's a bit like trying not to think of an elephant. The question is whether the isssue of homosexuality was on your mind when suggesting that the exchange should last a fortnight, that only two should be engaged and that others may watch providing they don't interfere? Hmm! I think I might just hang around for the post event discussion!
Matt
|
|
|
Post by NONONO on Feb 26, 2008 17:51:28 GMT -5
Now that a new sub-board has been started for NT study (great idea, by the way), I wonder if we could start another sub-board for debate. I mean "real" debate. - A debate question mutually agreed upon.
- Two debaters.
- An exchange that lasts for say, a fortnight.
- No interference from other posters who may only watch.
- Post-debate discussion from all.
- Poll - who had the stronger arguments.
Etc. For truth emerges from the conflict of debate. Some great debate topics: - Church buildings
- Christian practices
- Women preachers
- Dress code
- Reformed theology
- Calvinism \ Arminianism
- Homosexuality
- Authority in the Church
etc. I have been pushing this idea for a long while. Perhaps it could come under advisement? Peace. Jason is unable to deal with real conversations. His communication preference is debate style only. This is because he wants to win the argument at all costs, and he knows he is the best debater on this board. Has anyone ever seen Jason give in to any doctrinal or belief point? No, he never retreats, never concedes, and never backs down from his point of view no matter if it's grounded in truth or not. He is not interested in real conversations, in real back and forth, he only wants to overcome by way of debate. Admin do not give in -- it is a sham.
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Feb 26, 2008 18:41:27 GMT -5
I think it would be a good idea! I know it's been brought up before. Also, it may keep other threads from being hijacked?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 26, 2008 18:57:42 GMT -5
We don't have to worry about someone we know who used to hijack threads once in awhile Iilene.
|
|
|
Post by junia on Feb 26, 2008 19:18:10 GMT -5
can we debate nuclear weapons? my first question would be: why does a rabbit poop in little tiny bits, and a horse just poops all over the place? you wanna debate nuclear weapons, but you don't know sh-. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That made me laugh Ranman!
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Feb 26, 2008 19:22:13 GMT -5
We don't have to worry about someone we know who used to hijack threads once in awhile Iilene. Sorry....(wiping tears from my eyes)...mourning over Iilene. She never even got the chance to drive the monster truck around the mud pit.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Feb 26, 2008 21:11:42 GMT -5
Git, instead of starting a debate room, why don't you start a room dedicated entirely to your opinion. Seriously. You offer a topic and control the discussion, ignoring anything that doesn't comply with your standards. Blocking all but two people is a bit over the top.
Well, on second thought, maybe your own board would be a better idea. (You may think I'm being sarcastic, my usual, but I'm serious this time.)
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Feb 26, 2008 21:16:33 GMT -5
Upon further consideration, forget the first paragraph. Maybe I should erase it.
|
|
|
Post by honesty on Feb 26, 2008 22:00:24 GMT -5
Upon further consideration, forget the first paragraph. Maybe I should erase it. He tried that already. He built it, but nobody came.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 26, 2008 22:03:26 GMT -5
I am with you and Jason.
I have an idea for the first debate: GiT and Nathan could debate predestination and/or perseverance of the saints.
Then the second debate could be GiT and Bert debating the Trinity.
Then the third debate could be GiT and Diet Coke debating the infallibility of scripture.
|
|
elle
Junior Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by elle on Feb 26, 2008 22:05:07 GMT -5
I have an idea for the first debate: GiT and Nathan could debate predestination and/or perserverance of the saints. Then the second debate could be GiT and Bert debating the Trinity. Then the third debate could be GiT and Diet Coke debating the infallibilty of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 26, 2008 22:19:09 GMT -5
GIT and I did debate a little on predestination and POTS in the past.So you'll be primed and ready to let the readers decide Besides, you obviously missed my point.
|
|
BaPa
Senior Member
Posts: 480
|
Post by BaPa on Feb 26, 2008 22:19:52 GMT -5
And who would be the judge panel? Or would we use "let the reader decide" complements of Nathan. lol
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2008 22:48:39 GMT -5
I'm not averse to the idea, but apart from trying to serve everyone here by doing the routine boring admin tasks, I don't see my role as any type of leadership by intellectual force. So if a large enough group of TMB users (members & guests) want to try this idea, then we'll do it. Give it a try. I don't see it as necessarily 'giving in' to anybody. If it fails miserably, we simply stop it. It could be fun. Who was it who gave Jason 'the best debater on this board' award? Big call. Maybe there's someone in the wings who will surprise us all. Three questions: 1. Is there enough support? 2. Rules ( honesty seems good at devising a long set of rules (Scott's shirt slogan thread), just as well he never got to do the 10 commandments ), eg. are only two people allowed to debate for a fixed period (how long?) followed by free for all and a vote? 3. Who starts off? (I like some of zorro's suggestions)
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Feb 26, 2008 22:54:26 GMT -5
Rules could be simple. Pro and Con each get opening, two responses, then a conclusion. Pro always goes first.
1) Pro topic open 2) Con topic open 3) Pro first response 4) Con first response 5) Pro second response 6) Con second response 7) Pro close 8) Con close
No new arguments can be introduced in closes.
|
|
|
Post by honesty on Feb 26, 2008 23:03:56 GMT -5
honesty seems good at devising a long set of rules (Scott's shirt slogan thread), just as well he never got to do the 10 commandments Do they have to be in numerical order? ;D
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Feb 26, 2008 23:54:26 GMT -5
I think it's a good idea....I mean, IMO, it can't really hurt. If both parties agree in advance...why not? The only thing I would say is that in these threads, personal attacks should NOT be allowed for ANY reason. On the general board whatever is going to be is going to be.....but debate, by it's very nature, is going to be controversial. Keep it clean....JMHO. My only suggestion contrary to what GIT said.....I believe a week should be sufficient...instead of 2...but that's just me so whatever.... M. PS....I will have to ask my husband about this....this may (or may not!) be something he would be interested in...but I know he would be good at it, should he decide to participate!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 27, 2008 0:10:47 GMT -5
but I know he would be good at it, should he decide to participate! You sound just like my wife talking about me doing the housework..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2008 0:51:37 GMT -5
Rules could be simple. Pro and Con each get opening, two responses, then a conclusion. Pro always goes first. 1) Pro topic open 2) Con topic open 3) Pro first response 4) Con first response 5) Pro second response 6) Con second response 7) Pro close 8) Con close No new arguments can be introduced in closes. I think this is an excellent idea. I love it when Glory actually presents a well-reasoned and researched argument, and even better when the response to Glory is something other than "you're stoopid and use too many big words and that makes me angry and therefore I don't like you". I like Zorro's list too.... and I understand the point.... but seriously I would nominate Zorro to enage in a debate with Glory
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2008 1:07:34 GMT -5
Some other's that come to mind that I would nominate:
Rob Oxenbridge Clay Randall Diet Coke Jessi Hagen Jesse Lackman Brick
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 27, 2008 1:32:47 GMT -5
but seriously I would nominate Zorro to enage in a debate with Glory
Hi Gene, Something's been on my mind about this idea and I suppose this is as good of a time as any to throw it out there. I mentioned on a thread a long time ago that my approach to study of scripture and doctrine is to consider an issue as it fits into this list: 1. Critical to salvation 2. Critical to orthodoxy 3. Important but not critical 4. Not important 5. Speculative
IMO, other than those issues critical to salvation, and to a much lesser degree orthodoxy, Christians really should understand God allows differences of opinion and conviction without hindering their ability to have fellowship within the body of Christ. Think Romans 14, where Paul explains that people can be "fully persuaded" of positions completely contrary to another, yet be in fellowship of love, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost. In other words a "debate" seeking a "winning position" in such matters is counterproductive and actually unscriptural.
As regards the more serious matters of salvation, GiT and I would actually find ourselves in agreement on most matters of doctrine. Where we completely disagree is that he defines the Church of God as the F&Ws fellowship and I would define it as the universal, invisible Church known by God himself. I'm also very curious as to how he can accept the teachings of early church leaders, reformation leaders, etal when his own church leaders would brand them as false...but I'm not sure where a topic of debate is there.
Bottom line is that I have no interest in debating issues that aren't important to me - like dress codes and church buildings, or speculative issues. Issues regarding salvation, basically the 5 solas, is where my passion is.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Feb 27, 2008 3:18:50 GMT -5
A debate is not about "winning" or "losing", but rather an opportunity to present one's thinking and the basis of that thinking. People can then make up their own minds whether the evidence or the foundation for a certain persuasion is as solid the contrary position.
There is a reason the 5 solas were debated and argued by all the major reforming figures. Because it is through debate that the truth emerges - emotive mudslinging does not impress anyone in a debate. Maybe this is why so many people wish to avoid it? (BTW: I never said I would be a debate participant. I'm happy to watch others debate. It would be nice, I think, to have a good to-and-fro, analytical discussion without the ditzy posters ruining it with their stupid name-calling.)
ZORRO: I find your earlier comments in this thread rather surprising. I didn't think you would come out with something like that. It seemed a bit beneath you, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2008 7:09:31 GMT -5
Zorro and Glory, from my perspective, the topic I would find of interest in a debate between the two of you is the point Zorro mentioned: "Where we completely disagree is that he defines the Church of God as the F&Ws fellowship and I would define it as the universal, invisible Church known by God himself".
Cheers, Gene
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 27, 2008 7:21:19 GMT -5
I like the idea of watching a lively debate. Could be highly entertaining and educational. I enjoy hearing different people's opinions on matters and seeing things from different points of view. I strongly agree with this: I love it when Glory actually presents a well-reasoned and researched argument, and even better when the response to Glory is something other than "you're stoopid and use too many big words and that makes me angry and therefore I don't like you". With all that said... I feel I must say that... For truth emerges from the conflict of debate. ...has not been true for me. For me, I've found the best source of truth to be on my knees before God. Too often I've found that (as the hymn says) man's wisdom leads into a maze. my two cents and said with respect. peace, freespirit P.S. I'll bring popcorn for everyone. No.... scratch that. If this is going to actually be a respectful exchange of ideas I'll bring tea and scones.
|
|
|
Post by zorro unplugged on Feb 27, 2008 8:22:58 GMT -5
ZORRO: I find your earlier comments in this thread rather surprising. I didn't think you would come out with something like that. It seemed a bit beneath you, actually.
I was simply making a point, with a touch of dry humor thrown in. Sorry you missed that. Most of your suggested topic suggestions appear to be aligning defenders of your fellowship against exes. My point, that I've made several times - and you've never addressed - is the fact that there is no uniformity of doctrinal belief between your own membership. A debate between you and Bert on the Trinity is one you and I couldn't have because we agree on the subject. Bottom line is that your premise that members and exes have polarized opinions on doctrinal subjects, while members are in unity is incorrect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 8:53:26 GMT -5
"A debate between you and Bert on the Trinity is one you and I couldn't have because we agree on the subject. "
Not necessarily Zorro, one person would simply have to take the side that they don't agree with. That's the beauty of pure debating, it doesn't have to be personal. In fact, taking the side opposite to one's personally held view is very beneficial to the debater, as it broadens their understanding of the subject and helps them empathize with the other side.
Having an ex take a pro-2x2 position and an innie take an anti-2x2 position in a debate could be a valuable exercise.
|
|
|
Post by zorro unplugged on Feb 27, 2008 9:19:15 GMT -5
"A debate between you and Bert on the Trinity is one you and I couldn't have because we agree on the subject. "
Not necessarily Zorro, one person would simply have to take the side that they don't agree with. That's the beauty of pure debating, it doesn't have to be personal. In fact, taking the side opposite to one's personally held view is very beneficial to the debater, as it broadens their understanding of the subject and helps them empathize with the other side.
Having an ex take a pro-2x2 position and an innie take an anti-2x2 position in a debate could be a valuable exercise.
I understand the premise of formal debate, but at this particular juncture - and regarding issues of scripture - I don't believe it's the proper format. Having someone who believes in the triune nature of God, defend Arianism (as an example) simply for sake of "debate" makes no sense to me. GiT makes my point when he says that the 5 solas were debated - they were debated from the very serious perspective of defending ones beliefs, not for sport. Would Gene be willing to defend a position against homosexuality, and GiT defend the position for it? Would Bert defend the position of God's triune nature - would he even be able , while GiT defends Arianism? I doubt it.
|
|