Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage all necessary parameters of a topic are certainly not worthwhile.
It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.
If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.
I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?
Informal debating via writing is one thing. Formal, spoken debates require more preparation. I don't have that time and I doubt Randy does as well. I don't think the topic warrants that amount of preparation (and I am not even sure what the topic is).
There are good formal debates. The TEDS debate on the Subordination of the Son was a good one.