KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:43:11 GMT -5
Still waiting for the quote and the post where I "turned it down repeatedly. "
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:47:20 GMT -5
are you willing to put your views of government to the ultimate test and scrutiny as you have said? The fact that you run like a jackrabbit from anything resembling standard debate rules here and enthusiastically endorse anything on TL is suspicious to say the least. This statement is such a false statement. I have not run from a single thing you or anyone have said. I've responded time and again in multiple threads when I had time to do so. I mentioned TOL as a possible avenue for a moderated debate I think twice maybe three times. And that's it. This is the first I've really explored or discussed the option at any length. You never once asked or challenged me to a moderated debate. And I find your statements here highly offensive. And I don't take offense easily, you of all people know that.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:49:17 GMT -5
The funnies thing of all is I've posted on here a thousand times to one the amount of times I've posted on TOL in recent months. Your statement is mind-boggling to me.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 3:23:19 GMT -5
You know you repeatedly failed to follow the debate standards that you yourself laid down. You've made rude comments, misrepresented our opinions time and time again, and even made outright false statements like the ones in this thread. You can't and won't see what these views have done to your behavior but I see it because I have been your friend for a long time. I have tried and tried to have a good conversation with you for weeks on here. I've given you Scripture verses to think about and all you did was reply with snide remarks.
On using the Bible to reach people you made a statement like "A broken clock is right twice a day."
I know I have patiently tried to sift through and discuss things with you over and over again. I've replied time and again that what you think are our views on government are wrong, and even sitting in another one of these threads right now is yet another long and well thought post that went completely ignored.
And you say I was running?
I was kind of excited about doing another Battle Royale because it really is a cool format to debate in, my intentions were good. Your response was uncalled for and rude. You did not follow your own debate standard of "Don't win a debate and lose a friend."
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 10:03:47 GMT -5
Okay, I'll do it. I will participate in the debate forum of your choice, on the moderator of your choice, in the forum of your choice, under the rules of your choice. Set it up and tell me where to be and when. However, bear in mind that this is not a debate under accepted Academic or Cross Examination Rules (or any other standard rules) and although it will undoubtedly serve your intended purpose, it will not serve mine. My purpose was to remove ad hominal arguments. This forum specifically permits them. My purpose was to compel direct responses to direct questions. This forum makes no effort to accomplish that. My purpose was to conduct dispassionate discourse without emotionalism or shouting matches. TOL seems to encourage it. My purpose was to promote research in a search for truth, whereas TOL explicitly discourages the use of research or historical data. Overall, my purpose was to elevate the level of discussion by adhering to rules not of my making (or yours) that have served independent academic debates well for centuries. Applying those rules here would help eliminate some of the emotional outbursts seen recently and help us focus on the debate rather than the person conducting it. So yes, I will participate, although another shouting match on TOL will not accomplish any of the reasons for which I originally suggested debate rules on this forum. Tell me when, where, and how to get started. See you there.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:26:32 GMT -5
Okay, I'll do it. I will participate in the debate forum of your choice, on the moderator of your choice, in the forum of your choice, under the rules of your choice. Set it up and tell me where to be and when. However, bear in mind that this is not a debate under accepted Academic or Cross Examination Rules (or any other standard rules) and although it will undoubtedly serve your intended purpose, it will not serve mine. My purpose was to remove ad hominal arguments. This forum specifically permits them. My purpose was to compel direct responses to direct questions. This forum makes no effort to accomplish that. My purpose was to conduct dispassionate discourse without emotionalism or shouting matches. TOL seems to encourage it. My purpose was to promote research in a search for truth, whereas TOL explicitly discourages the use of research or historical data. Overall, my purpose was to elevate the level of discussion by adhering to rules not of my making (or yours) that have served independent academic debates well for centuries. Applying those rules here would help eliminate some of the emotional outbursts seen recently and help us focus on the debate rather than the person conducting it. So yes, I will participate, although another shouting match on TOL will not accomplish any of the reasons for which I originally suggested debate rules on this forum. Tell me when, where, and how to get started. See you there. The whole stated nature of these debates fly in the face of some of the things you've just said here. From their own rules which you obviously didn't bother to read: Yes they allow ad homs but they state that it's not always a wise tactic. The whole format is point vs. counter-point. To say they discourage historical data or research is false. You should read some of the Battle Royales before you make that statement, they're loaded with historical data and research. They do ask that you quote your sources if you're going to post someone else's material. That's standard debate practice. And the real reason they have these debates is not so we can both sit and quote external authors the entire time but to have a moderated debate round by round point by point between US. You should examine something in further detail before making false statements like SOME of the ones above.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:33:09 GMT -5
It's not like I was sitting around lobbing ad hom attacks at you anyway. I've responded with substance some things that refute your position. And there is so much more. My idea was to have a debate between two Christians using the standard of God's Word to discern the truth. Again I still find your responses over the top and uncalled for.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:37:02 GMT -5
But hey calling someone a Tory and saying falsely that they ran like a jackrabbit are ad-hom attacks and they didn't serve you too well nor did they do much for your position.
Or saying that when they've had success using God's Word to redeem the lost that they were like "a broken clock".
You used lots of ad-hom arguments and statements, you just called them something else and tried to justify them.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 11:41:18 GMT -5
Then we agree. RULE ADDITION #4 ... let's attempt to use external sources sparinglyPerhaps I misinterpreted this. However, it is difficult for the casual reader to arrive at another conclusion.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:52:45 GMT -5
Then we agree. RULE ADDITION #4 ... let's attempt to use external sources sparinglyPerhaps I misinterpreted this. However, it is difficult for the casual reader to arrive at another conclusion. Only if the "casual reader" was picking and choosing statements arbitrarily. The whole purpose is to encourage discussion between the participants, not spend a whole debate copying and pasting external sources to each other. Providing links, historical data, and a number of things like attachments is allowed and encouraged. Like I said, read through a few Battle Royales and investigate it a bit further instead of by choice being a "casual reader".
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 12:02:17 GMT -5
The whole purpose is to encourage discussion between the participants, not spend a whole debate copying and pasting external sources to each other. You are no longer challenging the fact that external research is discouraged, but rather explaining the reasons for it.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 12:05:33 GMT -5
The whole purpose is to encourage discussion between the participants, not spend a whole debate copying and pasting external sources to each other. You are no longer challenging the fact that external research is discouraged, but rather explaining the reasons for it. Good grief man. I know you aren't this dense. The idea of a debate is not for two people to sit and make their whole posts copied and pasted from an external source. Saying that is not discouraging external research.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 22:39:56 GMT -5
So Knight said we should come up with a great title and get back with him. If you want to proceed with having a one on one Battle Royale about the government, what would you like to call it and what would you say would be the main points you'd like to discuss?
Would a debate on the subject of "Is all government inherently evil?" be ok with you? My honest feeling on this is that we should seek to be iron sharpening iron and have it be a debate centered around the Word of God.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 28, 2010 12:56:28 GMT -5
Stop, Kevin. We talked about this yesterday. Read the actual text and recognize the literal meaning of words. I claimed that the use of external research was discouraged on TOL. You claimed that it was not. To prove your point, you stated the reasons for which the use of external sources was discouraged by TOL. I concede entirely. I am not debating the reasons for which TOL discourages independent external research. I am merely stating the fact that they do it. So... The idea of a debate is not for two people to sit and make their whole posts copied and pasted from an external source. Saying that is not discouraging external research. I agree entirely. You have accurately stated the reasons for which external sources of research are discouraged on TOL. But TOL does, in fact, actively discourage topical research as part of their debates. I believe that is antithetical to actively seeking truth, and I believe that it encourages the use of personal opinion and relativity rather than historical data and demonstrable facts.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 28, 2010 13:00:20 GMT -5
Would a debate on the subject of "Is all government inherently evil?" be ok with you? That's entirely up to you. I've already name at least three potential topics when I unsuccessfully attempted to introduce some basic debate rules on this forum. You're in charge of this, not me, so take your pick. My intent was not to hold a majestic showdown on a platform for the world to see. My intent was to make our discussions on IndySquadron.com more enjoyable by imposing an external discipline that helps us better interact with each other. TOL will be of no use in that regard.
|
|