- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:54) Quote (Stu @ June 19 2010,05:27) It is amusing to watch christians arguing over how they will argue over their nonsense fantasy stories. Keep up the good work!
Stuart
Yes, Stu. Because we know that all you atheists agree on everything.
mike
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,12:53) KJ's got first dibs, I'm happy to wait my turn. I agreed when it looked like your debate had fallen through but now Jack has made a very reasonable offer to you. You should take it up. We can do ours later when i'm on top of my other commitments.
I'm not going anywhere……God willing.
Let me know when your done debating about debating.
At this point, this is nonsense.
I think Stu had the most valid points so far in this thread.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,12:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:48) And why can't we finish what we've already started? Prove you are serious about this and answer my 2 questions on our debate thread. If you do that, and Dennison agrees you have DIRECTLY answered the points, we can move forward. I have ALWAYS answered your RELATED points – you should too. Even when I didn't know the answer, that was your answer.
Can you guys just agree and get on with this? Why are you making it so difficult Mike?
Why is it me making it difficult? I'm not the one who refuses to continue the debate we already have going.To be honest, I've never done a “formal” debate of any kind. I wouldn't even know where to start with an opening statement. Do I list every related scripture – because that could be half the Bible.
I like t8's idea better. I say, “Stephen saw Jesus, so therefore Jesus couldn't be God”. And then Jack can refute or “explain” that fact. And if he doesn't address the point in question, the others could jump in and give him what for about it.
What's wrong with a point by point debate like that? If we are both FORCED to either DIRECTLY answer or tap out, maybe we can have closure on at least one scripture that we disagree with you trinitarians about.
Mike can you at this point agree to a debate with KJ? You can pick the resolve (a colossal advantage), let him pick the format and lets be done with all this posturing….
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:10) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,12:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:48) And why can't we finish what we've already started? Prove you are serious about this and answer my 2 questions on our debate thread. If you do that, and Dennison agrees you have DIRECTLY answered the points, we can move forward. I have ALWAYS answered your RELATED points – you should too. Even when I didn't know the answer, that was your answer.
Can you guys just agree and get on with this? Why are you making it so difficult Mike?
Why is it me making it difficult? I'm not the one who refuses to continue the debate we already have going.To be honest, I've never done a “formal” debate of any kind. I wouldn't even know where to start with an opening statement. Do I list every related scripture – because that could be half the Bible.
I like t8's idea better. I say, “Stephen saw Jesus, so therefore Jesus couldn't be God”. And then Jack can refute or “explain” that fact. And if he doesn't address the point in question, the others could jump in and give him what for about it.
What's wrong with a point by point debate like that? If we are both FORCED to either DIRECTLY answer or tap out, maybe we can have closure on at least one scripture that we disagree with you trinitarians about.
Omgosh,A Formal debate is not hard.
Again its very simple.
I can ever spell out each step in how to present a case, and a opening statement.
ITS nessary to bring conclusions and validations to points that have been made.
Look up LD debate and check it out. its not hard its a simple process.
A case is made up of a
Resolve:defining terms within the resolve,
Your points,
and for every points your warrants and impacts.and than your conclusion.
thats it,
from there you rebuttle. which is attacking the others guys case and defending your own.
In the end, we will see what upholds.
a point by point discussion continues forever, and is never ending.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:10) To be honest, I've never done a “formal” debate of any kind. I wouldn't even know where to start with an opening statement. Do I list every related scripture – because that could be half the Bible.
It's not difficult. You just need to make a scriptural case for your contention. You can use as many or few scriptures that you feel you need to make your case solidly. You will have a word maximum so you'll have to operate within that limitation.SF, could you perhaps find a structured online debate to give Mike an example of what he would be signing up for?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:11) Mike can you at this point agree to a debate with KJ? You can pick the resolve (a colossal advantage), let him pick the format and lets be done with all this posturing….
Agree to a debate? We HAVE ONE GOING! Jack should agree to let others pipe in on our ongoing debate. No arguments, just some “Answer the flippin' question, Jack” comments.
You know as well as I do that he just wants to avoid the topics HE originally picked because of Eusebius and Ignatius. Another attempt at an end run.
Finish what you started, Jack!
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,13:14) Omgosh, A Formal debate is not hard.
Again its very simple.
Chill out Dennison Fine. Here's my complete opening statement:
Stephen was able to see Jesus but only the glory of God before he died. No man can see God. Ergo, Jesus is not God.
Good enough?
mike
Mike,
I think your super elderly mind is making things to complicated.
how old are you again? 100?jk
to respond:
Good enough? not really. If you look at the very first post, the topic of this thread, i made it clear how the guidelines work and the page limits.What i truely think is that you want to make quick responses, like a Q&A debate which is more active but forever, than presenting a case which is more formal with conclusion.
Idk Mike, its your show,
choose what you want to do, im here to serve, in whatever you need me for, if you want me to state the obvious for public record than so be it.
lol I can be your offical judge in whatever format you choose to debate.Again i believe you perfer a Q&A format. Where a person ask a Question. Rebuttles it, and than the oppostion asked a Question, and its back and forth for a limited number of posts, and than there should be a conclusive posts.
what do you think mike?
its quicker and a bit more simple.(Oh no did i say choose? aw man, be, careful Mike! Gene, or Co might accuse you of being a “Freewiller” !)
Hi all,
we might as well copy the presidential debates and just have one judge, and two debators, have the members of HN ask questions to where debators would argue about.what do ya think?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,13:31) Idk Mike, its your show,
choose what you want to do, im here to serve, in whatever you need me for, if you want me to state the obvious for public record than so be it.
lol I can be your offical judge in whatever format you choose to debate.Again i believe you perfer a Q&A format. Where a person ask a Question. Rebuttles it, and than the oppostion asked a Question, and its back and forth for a limited number of posts, and than there should be a conclusive posts.
what do you think mike?
its quicker and a bit more simple.
YES! YES! YES!You just judge to keep things honest. And we don't have to put a limit on it. If it comes to “asked and aswered” in your opinion, then say so and that question is voided. But ONLY if it has been answered DIRECTLY and COMPLETELY.
I'm willing to start where Jack and I left off on our debate, or we can move to the right hand or the Stephen thing.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,13:33) Hi all,
we might as well copy the presidential debates and just have one judge, and two debators, have the members of HN ask questions to where debators would argue about.what do ya think?
I vote for impeachment of that idea.I like the idea of letting one of them (Mike) pick the resolve and the other (KJ) the format. Otherwise this isn't going to happen. I agree with KJ that there's a potential for the debate to go on ad infinitum if Mike runs with a freestyle format. I wouldn't sign up to that. I imagine KJ, like myself, would like it structured and with strict rebuttal and word limits.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:48) I like the idea of letting one of them (Mike) pick the resolve and the other (KJ) the format. Otherwise this isn't going to happen. I agree with KJ that there's a potential for the debate to go on ad infinitum if Mike runs with a freestyle format. I wouldn't sign up to that. I imagine KJ, like myself, would like it structured and with strict rebuttal and word limits.
I second that,
Thats the whole point of this threadQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:45) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,13:31) Idk Mike, its your show,
choose what you want to do, im here to serve, in whatever you need me for, if you want me to state the obvious for public record than so be it.
lol I can be your offical judge in whatever format you choose to debate.Again i believe you perfer a Q&A format. Where a person ask a Question. Rebuttles it, and than the oppostion asked a Question, and its back and forth for a limited number of posts, and than there should be a conclusive posts.
what do you think mike?
its quicker and a bit more simple.
YES! YES! YES!You just judge to keep things honest. And we don't have to put a limit on it. If it comes to “asked and aswered” in your opinion, then say so and that question is voided. But ONLY if it has been answered DIRECTLY and COMPLETELY.
I'm willing to start where Jack and I left off on our debate, or we can move to the right hand or the Stephen thing.
mike
so be it,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
