Hi Lion and Godschild,
You guys let me know the names of the people participating first. After that, we still need to have some rules. I have a few other suggestions for the rules.
First, I would suggest that there shouldn't be long quotations. My experience is many Christians tend to copy and paste from long and tedious commentaries which usually don't address the issues on all fours. That's not fair to me because you can't expect me to read somebody else's commentary. In a debate, I want to see YOUR arguments, not another commentator's. Similarly, you cannot give me a reading list and say the answer to a particular question is in that reading list or in that book. You have to use your own words and say what the answer is.
Next, I would suggest that either party can have what I shall call "The Inquisition". This will be particular questions that one party feels the other party has not addressed or is evading or is important to him. The Inquisition should appear at the end of the post and each question in the the Inquisition must be specifically and serially numbered. The questions must give full particulars of what is being asked and there must be reasonable specificity. For example, you can't ask in the Inquisition "What is your view on free will?" That will be too lacking in specifics. You can ask "Can you give an example where someone exercises free will?" because the question is specific and the other party just has to give an example. Or you can ask, "Do you believe that free will conflicts with predestination?" because that is a specific question that can easily be answered with a yes or a no. Of course the other party need not answer with only a yes or a no. He can always elaborate on his answers. We must have a rule that the Inquisition must be answered in full. Failure to answer any question in the Inquisition will mean the party is admitting defeat. All questions in the Inquisition must be answered as soon as it is time for the party asked to give his rebuttal. You can't put off your answers for another rebuttal later.
Next, I would suggest that either party has to be specific in its argument. A party can't say, "But that is already answered in John's Gospel". He must be specific and give the actual verse number and the specific passage. I don't want to have to flip through the Bible if you are going to have a hundred biblical citations. And he cannot say, "But we have addressed that issue in our earlier post. If in fact he has done so, he should copy and paste from the earlier post of his.
We have to decide on the timing. How long will the other party have before he can respond? We should be fair and the timing should be the same. I'm not asking for more time because I'm doing it singlehandedly so you mustn't ask for more time because there are more of you. I think it should be easier if there are more of you because you can distribute the workload among yourselves whereas I shall have to address all the arguments myself. But the same time should be allotted for each side - I'm ok with that.
If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
You guys let me know the names of the people participating first. After that, we still need to have some rules. I have a few other suggestions for the rules.
First, I would suggest that there shouldn't be long quotations. My experience is many Christians tend to copy and paste from long and tedious commentaries which usually don't address the issues on all fours. That's not fair to me because you can't expect me to read somebody else's commentary. In a debate, I want to see YOUR arguments, not another commentator's. Similarly, you cannot give me a reading list and say the answer to a particular question is in that reading list or in that book. You have to use your own words and say what the answer is.
Next, I would suggest that either party can have what I shall call "The Inquisition". This will be particular questions that one party feels the other party has not addressed or is evading or is important to him. The Inquisition should appear at the end of the post and each question in the the Inquisition must be specifically and serially numbered. The questions must give full particulars of what is being asked and there must be reasonable specificity. For example, you can't ask in the Inquisition "What is your view on free will?" That will be too lacking in specifics. You can ask "Can you give an example where someone exercises free will?" because the question is specific and the other party just has to give an example. Or you can ask, "Do you believe that free will conflicts with predestination?" because that is a specific question that can easily be answered with a yes or a no. Of course the other party need not answer with only a yes or a no. He can always elaborate on his answers. We must have a rule that the Inquisition must be answered in full. Failure to answer any question in the Inquisition will mean the party is admitting defeat. All questions in the Inquisition must be answered as soon as it is time for the party asked to give his rebuttal. You can't put off your answers for another rebuttal later.
Next, I would suggest that either party has to be specific in its argument. A party can't say, "But that is already answered in John's Gospel". He must be specific and give the actual verse number and the specific passage. I don't want to have to flip through the Bible if you are going to have a hundred biblical citations. And he cannot say, "But we have addressed that issue in our earlier post. If in fact he has done so, he should copy and paste from the earlier post of his.
We have to decide on the timing. How long will the other party have before he can respond? We should be fair and the timing should be the same. I'm not asking for more time because I'm doing it singlehandedly so you mustn't ask for more time because there are more of you. I think it should be easier if there are more of you because you can distribute the workload among yourselves whereas I shall have to address all the arguments myself. But the same time should be allotted for each side - I'm ok with that.
If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
