- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Wow Dennison!
First you applaud WJ for “entrapping” me with a “loaded” question and then imply that we can not take the whole of scripture into account to help us figure out what is really meant in a certain passage.
Well, as a Christian, I disagree with both of your opinions. Entrapment is deceitful and I would imagine it is frowned upon by Jesus and his God. They seem to prefer honest weights and measures.
And why in the world would it not be acceptable to research the other things a particular writer said to try and gain a little better understanding of something else he said that could be taken two different ways? That just makes sense in my book.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 23 2010,06:04) Wow Dennison! First you applaud WJ for “entrapping” me with a “loaded” question and then imply that we can not take the whole of scripture into account to help us figure out what is really meant in a certain passage.
Well, as a Christian, I disagree with both of your opinions. Entrapment is deceitful and I would imagine it is frowned upon by Jesus and his God. They seem to prefer honest weights and measures.
And why in the world would it not be acceptable to research the other things a particular writer said to try and gain a little better understanding of something else he said that could be taken two different ways? That just makes sense in my book.
mike
Mike,What are you referring in your entrapment point?
Because what i say tommorow has no reference to what i said today.
You cant define the things i said today from what i said tommorow.
or before.
You have to understand the dircet circumstance of today to understand today,
the indirect past or future, is an indirect evidence, but not PROOF.
the proof is of that day.The past and future is for understanding but not proof.
You cant debate past with present.
You cant use the Past as to prove why Jake ran home somtimes to prove that he wasnt there to kill bob when there is a video camera of that day that recorded the killing.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2010,19:10) Hi Dennison, WHAT?!? I have no idea what that post was about.
mike
im confuse too.
what were you taking about?Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 27 2010,14:56) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.
Hi SF,Is NOT the goal to convince others to agree to “Bible Truth”?
Rather than to instead entrap them with crafty wording?Think about it!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,16:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 27 2010,14:56) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.
Hi SF,Is NOT the goal to convince others to agree to “Bible Truth”?
Rather than to instead entrap them with crafty wording?Think about it!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,Isn't agreement the goal in discoursing with others?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,10:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 27 2010,14:56) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.
Hi SF,Is NOT the goal to convince others to agree to “Bible Truth”?
Rather than to instead entrap them with crafty wording?Think about it!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
ed j,
you need to realize that when it comes to debates people have tactics. these tactics are just ways to persuade or trick a person into answering a question. in the end only God can persuade. we are talking about debate errors in this thread, not moral errors.
the debate formats I offered help two people discuss and debate so people can see what they agree or not, so they could agreeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ July 29 2010,12:47) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,10:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 27 2010,14:56) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.
Hi SF,Is NOT the goal to convince others to agree to “Bible Truth”?
Rather than to instead entrap them with crafty wording?Think about it!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
ed j,
you need to realize that when it comes to debates people have tactics. these tactics are just ways to persuade or trick a person into answering a question. in the end only God can persuade. we are talking about debate errors in this thread, not moral errors.
the debate formats I offered help two people discuss and debate so people can see what they agree or not, so they could agree
Hi SF,Perhaps this is why I choose to abstain.
Quote (david @ July 30 2010,15:10) I like this thread. Has it turned into a trinity discussion yet?
Hi David,Not yet!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ July 30 2010,09:10) I like this thread. Has it turned into a trinity discussion yet?
Haha!Hey All!
I just thought of a better analogy for what KJ is trying in our debate. I was calling it the “everything at the speed of light” attack. But I'm going to change that to the “Scooby Doo” attack.
At the beginning of each episode of Scooby Doo, the place really seems haunted, because all of the villain’s tricks are thrown at you all at once. But in the end, after the meddling kids and their dog capture the villain, Velma explains step by step how the villain made things that were not real appear as if they were. It always comes down to wires supported from the ceiling, smoke, mirrors, projectors, and fake doors.
This is how Jack and WJ like to debate. They use all of the Scooby Doo villain's tricks at once. But when you corner them, remove the mask, and, like Velma, break the charade down step by step, every bit of their trinity reasoning, which they say is supported by scripture and God, is revealed to be nothing but the parlor tricks of mere men using smoke and mirrors.
peace and love,
mike14)“Ad hominem.” Latin for “at the man”. ” This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. PLEASE, debate the words that people post, not your idea ABOUT the person that posts.”-WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 05 2010,14:54) 14)“Ad hominem.” Latin for “at the man”. ” This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. PLEASE, debate the words that people post, not your idea ABOUT the person that posts.”-WJ
SFThanks. How true!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2010,14:46) Hey All! I just thought of a better analogy for what KJ is trying in our debate. I was calling it the “everything at the speed of light” attack. But I'm going to change that to the “Scooby Doo” attack.
At the beginning of each episode of Scooby Doo, the place really seems haunted, because all of the villain’s tricks are thrown at you all at once. But in the end, after the meddling kids and their dog capture the villain, Velma explains step by step how the villain made things that were not real appear as if they were. It always comes down to wires supported from the ceiling, smoke, mirrors, projectors, and fake doors.
This is how Jack and WJ like to debate. They use all of the Scooby Doo villain's tricks at once. But when you corner them, remove the mask, and, like Velma, break the charade down step by step, every bit of their trinity reasoning, which they say is supported by scripture and God, is revealed to be nothing but the parlor tricks of mere men using smoke and mirrors.
peace and love,
mike
yawn…..15) Foul diversion- Is when a poster crys and shouts out “abuse” “abuse” and All Posters will pay attention to the abuse and forget about the reasoning within the supposed “abuse” the Victem instead of ignoreing the abuse crys out intead of answering the reasoing behind the abuse
16)N/A debate Fallacy-In Real LD debate, if a Debater does not answer a questions or does not refute a point that is made, than the Point is automatcially Valid and upheld.
Poster A) so here is the proof that Jesus is God (proof)
Poster B) Well we are all sons of God
Poster A) well since you didnt refute my proof than its valid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
