Debate Threads

[NaphtaliPress]

EP Debate?

After all the above, it has struck me this morning, given how often the subject comes up on PB, that Exclusive Psalmody may be a good candidate for one of these "rare" debates; and perhaps appropriately the first one. When the subject comes up in future we can steer folks to the debate for the basics. Thoughts? We'd need well grounded proponents for both sides who understand and adhere to the RPW.

 

[MrMerlin777]

We can't do that because that would elliminate the need for some of my favorite smilies!

This is my favorite smiley. MMMMM..... Java!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

After all the above, it has struck me this morning, given how often the subject comes up on PB, that Exclusive Psalmody may be a good candidate for one of these "rare" debates; and perhaps appropriately the first one. When the subject comes up in future we can steer folks to the debate for the basics. Thoughts? We'd need well grounded proponents for both sides who understand and adhere to the RPW.

BIG *bump*. Let's put this on the front burner again to consider.

 

[JohnV]

I think that moderators will especially have a hard time with it. It can happen that ruling someone in or out of the debate would be arbitrary. And even if a ruling is not arbitrary, it could still come back to bite a moderator. It might be putting yourselves into spots you really wouldn't like to put yourselves. If two people disagree, you don't want to come between them in any kind of partisan way if you're refereeing. As far as that goes, we already have as much refereeing as is required for such discussions. Closing the debate to others may just be a bit too much refereeing for the good of the moderators.

Maybe I'm off the wall here, but I think it is something that should be taken into consideration.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well - not to debate the point , but I sorta like the idea of a good source available to point folks...I, quite honestly, would have liked to see one on FV and Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology - just to familiarize myself with the issues and have a ready resource.

I also believe that the debates here would serve as a good resource for the Internet world in general, as long as we extend Christian love in our debates...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.

I think that moderators will especially have a hard time with it. It can happen that ruling someone in or out of the debate would be arbitrary. And even if a ruling is not arbitrary, it could still come back to bite a moderator. It might be putting yourselves into spots you really wouldn't like to put yourselves. If two people disagree, you don't want to come between them in any kind of partisan way if you're refereeing. As far as that goes, we already have as much refereeing as is required for such discussions. Closing the debate to others may just be a bit too much refereeing for the good of the moderators.

Maybe I'm off the wall here, but I think it is something that should be taken into consideration.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.

I also like the idea of having a "Peanut Gallery" thread that runs parallel - lets folk have open discussion of the issues as they are published.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I should add, that this is not unlike the exchanges I've edited for CPJ. Folks usually behave when their reps are going to be on the line, and if this is touted as a resource that might be often visited on the Net, it may not be too hard to draft debaters. Its too easy to get flip and get off the reservation in informal "chat" threads. This would be more formal; and yes, I it would be some work to set up. That is why they would not be some frequent occurence.

I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.

 

[Augusta]

I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.

I really like this idea. You could keep it focused on very big topics that seem to come up often on the board like EP, Baptism, Sabbatarianism, Headcovering, etc. Different camps could put forward their best and brightest on the subject keeping it as Chris said to TEs. JD's peanut gallery idea would naturally follow. You know someone would start one. That would be the harder one to moderate.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Chris,

I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.

 

[JohnV]

My question is: would there be room for questions from the audience?

 

[Herald]

Chris,

I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.

Rich - when does conversation become debate? Often times threads take on a life of their own. Debate may not have been intended, it just happens.

??

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

There is precedent for a two party debate thread: Paul and Fred in The Second Commandment - Paul and Fred discussing.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

How could we not. While not leaving a format in stone for every such debate; there would be several points where this could be done. In formal debates; I think the debaters questions themselves primarily; so I think at the end or at the end of specific junctures, audience questions could be feed to the debaters and some how fielded. Needs some thought, but it can be done certainly.

My question is: would there be room for questions from the audience?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chris,

I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.

That is fast; but I see I have some work to do. Folks may PM me for any ideas; I'll float a plan later on this thread which we can kick around. I'm not promising I will do this as fast as Rich is setting up the "space" for it. I just printed out a 50 page article on the first 50 questions of the Larger Catechism I need to proof, and then I still need to edit all the other submissions to CPJ 3; and beat some folks up who are late.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chris,

I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.

Mmh. I don't like the idea of just any two yahoos getting this right. We need to stipulate all is subject to moderator and board owner approval on this I think. Or is that in my corner with the "rules"?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I understand if you're busy. If somebody else wants to propose the basic ground rules then that's fine. I think we ought to have a minimal set of rules that ensures proper decorum and there are probably standard debate ground rules. I just don't want to be so rigid as to specify every rule for every debate that might occur. Some debates might be limited to 500 word opening statements followed by cross-examination, etc. Some might not allow for cross-examination. Each debate would have a set of propositions that would be debated, etc. I'm not an expert on this stuff but I've listened to enough to know that rules may vary a bit. If someone has the "typical" set of rules then I can post those in the sticky and then the first post of each debate would be a layout of what each side agreed to followed by the opening statement of the first debater.

I do want to allow maximal flexibility to "Yahoos" (aka Christians ). At this point, I'm going to stipulate that a debater has to be a "Regular Member" (>25posts) in order to be a participant so we know the person is not a problem child ahead of time.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My thought on preferring TEs (or “experts” in the field if you will) is it certainly lends a greater degree of respectability to the debate, as hopefully upon completion a go to resource.

 

[turmeric]

My thought on preferring TEs (or “experts” in the field if you will) is it certainly lends a greater degree of respectability to the debate, as hopefully upon completion a go to resource.

Is Manata a TE? We certainly want to let him be a debater, he seems to have expertise.