- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,10:41) I thought “rebuttals” WERE questions. 
I'm good with Jack's layout, I only need to know:
1. 10 questions before the rebuttals?
2. Are all 10 questions and/or rebuttals supposed to be in one post, or 10?mike
Hi Mike,I need for you to comment on the reply time. I proposed that each man may reply at leisure but not to exceed one week.
Jack
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 25 2010,07:11) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 25 2010,00:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 25 2010,06:35) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 25 2010,00:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2010,14:19) Not a clue, Dennison. But I agree we can change the word “rebuttals” to “questions”. Is that what you mean?
mike
Hi Mike,Okay here is how I see it now. SF will post our opening and closing statements with my statements on top each time.
We will post our 10 rebuttals ourselves with me going first. I wanted the rebuttals to be free for all with no requirements except word length and links to sources. The word length for each post will be one microsoft word page single space 12 font (per SF). This is approximately 630 words but allowing for a maximum of up to 700 words per post (total with all quotes from opponent and sources). Each man may use as little amount of words as he wants.
The links must be given when sources are used so each man can verify that the other cited his sources in context. The only thing left to agree upon is the time interval for reply. I suggest at leisure but up to one week max.
So these are pretty simple arrangements:
*Word length: 700 words maximum per post (opening sts, rebuttals & closing sts)
*Sources: Must post links to sources
*Reply time: At leisure but not to exceed one week
The debate must always be cordial. There will be no jabs (I am the chief sinner in this area) and no mock emoticons (again, I have been the guilty one).
If this arrangement is not acceptable then state your problems with it. If acceptable then please confirm it. I will not begin working on my opening st until the final agreement has been reached.
I am looking forward to it Mike.
Jack
KJ,I see a pontential probelm.
1)Are the sources going to be cited or going to be seperate from the maximum word limit.
2)Let me get this straight.
I post both opening statments from both debators.than allowing You (kj) to attack first correct because your the affrimitive or what not.
So how is this order,
*Opening Statements,
*Ten rebuttals each,
*than closeing statements.Is this correct? or are the opening and closeing part of the the ten?
3)I would still suggest for you guys to ask strict ten questions before the rebuttals. IF YA want to.
Its whatever.Formals Rebuttals should not have any questions but of course ya could change that.
sf,Here is the original format I proposed”
I. Opening statements/no rebuttal1.
followed by
II. Ten (10) rebuttals each
followed by
III. Closing statements2
1.Judge (SF) posts opening statements at the same time with KJ's on top
2. SF also posts closing statements at the same time with KJ's on top.So you will hold Mike's opening statement until you receive mine and then post them at the same time with mine on top. The same goes for the closing statements.
The 700 word maximum includes ALL qoutes unless Mike wants to negotiate it. 700 words per post is the maximum I am proposing.
Mike was given the choice who was to go first and he chose that I go first. It had nothing to do with arrirmative or negative.
Question: By ten questions do you mean one question per rebuttal?
KJ
KJ,let me clarify about the Questions.
Right after the opening statements, basically the case i guess.
you guys cross examine eachother by questions.
You ask a set of ten questions.
And than he ask a set of ten questions.and thats it. than the rebuttals starts.
I believe asking questions can hellp clairfy any misunderstandings or lack of information you might need to counter attack or defend.
sf,I am really not into the questions thing. As far as I am concerned the rebuttal starts after the opening statements are posted.
I do want to say that I will not answer ad hominen questions or arguments. If Mike should say for example: Did Eusebius believe that pasa ktisis means all mankind? This is an ad hominen question and I will not acknowledge it. I want the debate to be limited to the scriptures and extra-biblical sources such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,01:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,10:41) I thought “rebuttals” WERE questions. I'm good with Jack's layout, I only need to know:
1. 10 questions before the rebuttals?
2. Are all 10 questions and/or rebuttals supposed to be in one post, or 10?mike
Hi Mike,I need for you to comment on the reply time. I proposed that each man may reply at leisure but not to exceed one week.
Jack
fineThere is no references to what the penalties are for transgressions.
The 'one week max' should also include a mitigating circumstances…'The referee and the opponent must both be informed of a mitigation'
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,01:24) I do want to say that I will not answer ad hominen questions or arguments. If Mike should say for example: Did Eusebius believe that pasa ktisis means all mankind? This is an ad hominen question and I will not acknowledge it. I want the debate to be limited to the scriptures and extra-biblical sources such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons.
Hi Jack,Then just forget it. If you are not willing to answer to 4th century proof that pasa ktisis did NOT mean only mankind, then you will not answer the other hard questions I put to you. It will be a waste of my time. The ONLY thing I want out this whole thing is that you MUST answer my DIRECT questions DIRECTLY. I want nothing more than this.
Otherwise, it's like I just told WJ in our current (second) debate: Both of us can just continue to rattle off our beliefs and throw in a couple of scriptures that make them sound valid on the surface. But unless we are forced to answer DIRECT questions that refute these beliefs we are rattling off, it is an exercise in futility and the outcome will be the same as the start. You will insist you have it right, and I will insist I do.
Don't you see that after you go rattling off stuff about “only mankind”, and then I put up evidence to refute it, if you don't actually answer to that refuting evidence, but just avoid it, then the end result is no different than the beginning? You still insist you are right, no matter what the evidence says – because you weren't made to answer the evidence.
mike
Guys,
What if you were to have a debate about these issues. Use that debate to sort out the problems with the debate issues. Would that not help to then get SF's original debate idea off the ground?
A kind of 'debate, about
'the debate, about
'the debate that SF was discussing'''Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,03:02) Guys, What if you were to have a debate about these issues. Use that debate to sort out the problems with the debate issues. Would that not help to then get SF's original debate idea off the ground?
A kind of 'debate, about
'the debate, about
'the debate that SF was discussing'''
Hi JA,Where have you been?
We've been doing that for a while now.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,02:32) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,01:24) I do want to say that I will not answer ad hominen questions or arguments. If Mike should say for example: Did Eusebius believe that pasa ktisis means all mankind? This is an ad hominen question and I will not acknowledge it. I want the debate to be limited to the scriptures and extra-biblical sources such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons.
Hi Jack,Then just forget it. If you are not willing to answer to 4th century proof that pasa ktisis did NOT mean only mankind, then you will not answer the other hard questions I put to you. It will be a waste of my time. The ONLY thing I want out this whole thing is that you MUST answer my DIRECT questions DIRECTLY. I want nothing more than this.
Otherwise, it's like I just told WJ in our current (second) debate: Both of us can just continue to rattle off our beliefs and throw in a couple of scriptures that make them sound valid on the surface. But unless we are forced to answer DIRECT questions that refute these beliefs we are rattling off, it is an exercise in futility and the outcome will be the same as the start. You will insist you have it right, and I will insist I do.
Don't you see that after you go rattling off stuff about “only mankind”, and then I put up evidence to refute it, if you don't actually answer to that refuting evidence, but just avoid it, then the end result is no different than the beginning? You still insist you are right, no matter what the evidence says – because you weren't made to answer the evidence.
mike
Mike,Note Wikipedia's definition of an ad hominen argument:
“Argument to the person” redirects here. It is not to be confused with Appeal to the people.
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.I didn't think we would be getting into pasa ktisis. I was only using your ad hominen regarding Eusebius as an example of that which I will not acknowledge. The beliefs of Eusebius are not a valid argument.
Are you saying that we will not debate from scripture alone?
The only way an ad hominen argument is valid is if the character of the man is questionable.
The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If what you say about the beliefs of Eusebius is true, then there is a question about his character and in such a case the ad hominen may be valid. Eusebius did not stand for what he believed for he signed the creed which anathematized his personal firend. So it seems that the history of Eusebius would work for me if he believed what you say he did.
By calling off the debate you appear as if you do not have the confidence to argue from scripture alone. I can understand why seeing that you have a history of gaffe statements inwhich you indicate that you cannot scripturally prove when Jesus was begotten.
Jack
Mike,
I was going to extend it to 'seven levels of recursion' thats why i layed it out the way i started.Mike,
See my post above regarding ad hominen. Are we going to have a debate that is based in scripture alone or what? Hebrew and Greek lexicons and ALL translations of the scriptures would be allowed.
What more do you want?
Again, are we going to have a debate based in scripture alone?
Cordially,
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,03:24) By calling off the debate you appear as if you do not have the confidence to argue from scripture alone. I can understand why seeing that you have a history of gaffe statements inwhich you indicate that you cannot scripturally prove when Jesus was begotten.
Hi Jack,Has anyone ever debated just scripture? Don't we all use Vine or Strong or Webster? How can you say you ONLY want to use scripture and then insist we post links to any expert testimony we include?
Btw, are my previous so-called gaffes scriptural? Yet you “threaten”
to use them if we debated pasa ktisis and monogenes? 
You can set this thing up ANY WAY you want. My ONLY stipulation is that you MUST DIRECTLY answer any and all of my questions DIRECTLY.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,07:43) Mike, See my post above regarding ad hominen. Are we going to have a debate that is based in scripture alone or what? Hebrew and Greek lexicons and ALL translations of the scriptures would be allowed.
What more do you want?
Again, are we going to have a debate based in scripture alone?
Cordially,
Jack
What about encyclopedias? What about archeaological proof? What about a dictionary?I understand that I can't use the “my mom agrees with my view” argument. But if were discussing the 1st century usage of a Greek word, then by all means, the writings of 1st century Greek people would be allowed. Not for what they believed, but for how they understood the Greek words in question.
Agreed? Or we can let the judge invalidate any info that he thinks is unrelated and unconnected.
mike
You can debate just scripture.
its called BIF debate.
its debating the interpretation of scripture and using other texts to interpret one scripture.
Hi Dennison,
Shut up, will ya?
We've almost come to the end of our debate about the debate.
Don't add more things to discuss.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,07:43) Mike, See my post above regarding ad hominen. Are we going to have a debate that is based in scripture alone or what? Hebrew and Greek lexicons and ALL translations of the scriptures would be allowed.
What more do you want?
Again, are we going to have a debate based in scripture alone?
Cordially,
Jack
Hi Jack,I don't mean to necessarily poke my nose into your concerns,
but you say you don't want mans opinions but only Scripture.Shouldn't that mean you each pick only one English translation,
and stick to that choice throughout your discourse in this debate?
Playing musical English translations is incorporating mans opinions; is it not?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,10:23) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 27 2010,03:24) By calling off the debate you appear as if you do not have the confidence to argue from scripture alone. I can understand why seeing that you have a history of gaffe statements inwhich you indicate that you cannot scripturally prove when Jesus was begotten.
Hi Jack,Has anyone ever debated just scripture? Don't we all use Vine or Strong or Webster? How can you say you ONLY want to use scripture and then insist we post links to any expert testimony we include?
Btw, are my previous so-called gaffes scriptural? Yet you “threaten”
to use them if we debated pasa ktisis and monogenes? You can set this thing up ANY WAY you want. My ONLY stipulation is that you MUST DIRECTLY answer any and all of my questions DIRECTLY.
mike
Mike,I looked online about religous debates and found out that ideally the only evidence should be the scriptures. You mentioned Vine's. Did I not say that we should use Hebrew and Greek lexicons? I was including bible dictionaries. What I am saying is that the personal beliefs of a church father is not evidence. It is ad hominen. You may invoke church fathers if you wish. But I will not. And when you do invoke a father I will reply saying, “ad hominen” and move on to the next point. I am not going to get into that vicious cycle of repetition with you.
You count the things Eusebius wrote before he signed off on the Nicean Creed (assuming you interpret him correctly). I count only that he signed off on the Creed. That Creed denies that there was a time that Jesus was not and it anathematizes all those who say that there was a time that Jesus was not. So I will be keeping the church fathers and the creeds out of it.
It is too late for either of us to back out of this debate. Everyone here is anticipating it. So I will go ahead and work on my opening statement and send it to SF. I advise you to go through with it. Just know that I will not acknowledge arguments from the church fathers or the creeds and neither will I argue from them.
Scripture alone in all translations and Hebrew and Greek lexicons or dictionaries such as Vine's, Unger's, Nelson's, Wycliffe, and the TWOT or any published dictionary of the Bible.
At this point we must proceed. I want to debate your personal views against my personal views.
If you believe that scripture is on your side then it should be all you need. Right?
Cordially,
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 28 2010,03:25) What I am saying is that the personal beliefs of a church father is not evidence. It is ad hominen. You may invoke church fathers if you wish. But I will not. And when you do invoke a father I will reply saying, “ad hominen” and move on to the next point. I am not going to get into that vicious cycle of repetition with you.
Hi Jack,Just so you understand that their will be up to 10 direct questions as Dennison has suggested. And you must DIRECTLY answer any and all questions put to you, unless they are deemed invalid or unrelated by the judge.
Agreed? Even if YOU think it doesn't require an answer, you must answer it if the judge says to.
Other than that, I'm fine with the time limits and length and everything else.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
