Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Formal debate section
Lexilogio

Associated Thread for the Topic by Let us Reason

LetusReason has posed a topic for formal debate.

Are there any takers?
Samuel Vimes

Wasn't LUR supposed to have an identified debating partner before wading in and starting the debate?

Quote:
2. Two posters who intend to carry out a formal debate should propose the debate to admin or to the moderators, outlining the subject/title of the proposed debate and their qualification to debate said subject;
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Wasn't LUR supposed to have an identified debating partner before wading in and starting the debate?


Does it really matter? This part of the board isn't used, so is it really necessary to rigidly adhere to protocol? Mind you, I've no intention of debating with him; he's a Jehovah's Witness isn't he?
Samuel Vimes

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Wasn't LUR supposed to have an identified debating partner before wading in and starting the debate?


Does it really matter? This part of the board isn't used, so is it really necessary to rigidly adhere to protocol?


If it isn't necessary then why did Admin set the ground rules in the first place?
Pukon_the_Treen

Yes that really is an interesting and important issue; perhaps you should have a debate about it?
Pukon_the_Treen

No, wait! You would have to find someone to debate with of course. Perhaps if you were to put up a post advertising your willingness to debate the subject, and the then hope someone takes you up on it? No, that won't do; not allowed to post until you have a debating partner. Tricky. Perhaps you'd better just stay quiet on the issue of debating protocol until someone approaches you advertising their willingness to debate.
Samuel Vimes

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
No, wait! You would have to find someone to debate with of course. Perhaps if you were to put up a post advertising your willingness to debate the subject, and the then hope someone takes you up on it? No, that won't do; not allowed to post until you have a debating partner. Tricky. Perhaps you'd better just stay quiet on the issue of debating protocol until someone approaches you advertising their willingness to debate.


Evasion noted.  
Lexilogio

Ideally both should be identified, but the topic was posted, and I think it's reasonable to then ask if anyone wishes to take that up.

The debate could then continue as per the rules for this area.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Evasion noted.


I told you that I hardly think it's necessary to insist upon protocol because this debate section is unused; whatever rules there are do not appear to be working so why not bend them a bit? That is my point of view, not an evasion.
Samuel Vimes

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Evasion noted.


I told you that I hardly think it's necessary to insist upon protocol because this debate section is unused; whatever rules there are do not appear to be working so why not bend them a bit? That is my point of view, not an evasion.


And my point is that the rules were put in place for a reason.

In your opinion is that reason diminished by the fact that this section has been less than successful?

Is the primary objective to have a particular, structured type of debate in this section or is it to encourage as much debate as possible here?

If the latter how will it be distinguishable from the rest of the site?

If this is an experiment that hasn't worked shut it down and move on.
letusreason

Lexilogio wrote:
Ideally both should be identified, but the topic was posted, and I think it's reasonable to then ask if anyone wishes to take that up.

The debate could then continue as per the rules for this area.


Reply,

Hello to everyone!

I put up the question on Coptic John 1:1c in order to see if anyone would like to discuss it, that's all, no big deal here!

The BBC forum rules were slightly more ralxed, which I was used to...(it closes down soon)!

My analysis of the Greek John 1:1c and the Coptic John 1:1c, led me to believe that syntax, nuance and grammar was being ignored by some for theological reasons and when I had pointed these matters out and given many examples, Trinitarians either went silent or came back with one excuse after another, one so-called 'impartial' scholar after another, but could not show where my analysis was flawed and ignored the many examples given...! I even showed how the Rev. George W. Horner invented a special "Rule" (as did E. C. Colwell - "Colwell's Rule" c. 1934) just for John 1:1c and then proceeded to ignore his "Rule", a did Colwell, when his own analytical examples of Coptic John, proved him to be wrong, but nevertheless, like Colwell propagated misinformation and that misinformation has been banded about in books, web sites...as though Horner, like Colwell is correct, but Horner isn't correct...!

I can present my material on request and let readers decide for themselves and if they can show me, that I am in error somewhere, I will admit it and hold my hands up and become a Trinitarian again!

Letusreason
Pukon_the_Treen

Hi Letusreason,

Quote:
I put up the question on Coptic John 1:1c in order to see if anyone would like to discuss it, that's all, no big deal here!

The BBC forum rules were slightly more ralxed, which I was used to...(it closes down soon)!


The rest of the board functions in an informal manner (more relaxed than the BBC), but this particular section is for a more formal debate between two people only. I'd get Lexi to more the thread to the 'bible study' section if I were you.
Ra88itt

letusreason wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Ideally both should be identified, but the topic was posted, and I think it's reasonable to then ask if anyone wishes to take that up.

The debate could then continue as per the rules for this area.


Reply,

Hello to everyone!

I put up the question on Coptic John 1:1c in order to see if anyone would like to discuss it, that's all, no big deal here!

The BBC forum rules were slightly more ralxed, which I was used to...(it closes down soon)!

My analysis of the Greek John 1:1c and the Coptic John 1:1c, led me to believe that syntax, nuance and grammar was being ignored by some for theological reasons and when I had pointed these matters out and given many examples, Trinitarians either went silent or came back with one excuse after another, one so-called 'impartial' scholar after another, but could not show where my analysis was flawed and ignored the many examples given...! I even showed how the Rev. George W. Horner invented a special "Rule" (as did E. C. Colwell - "Colwell's Rule" c. 1934) just for John 1:1c and then proceeded to ignore his "Rule", a did Colwell, when his own analytical examples of Coptic John, proved him to be wrong, but nevertheless, like Colwell propagated misinformation and that misinformation has been banded about in books, web sites...as though Horner, like Colwell is correct, but Horner isn't correct...!

I can present my material on request and let readers decide for themselves and if they can show me, that I am in error somewhere, I will admit it and hold my hands up and become a Trinitarian again!

Letusreason


Hi Letusreason

I was hoping that Colin and the others that contested you from the BBC Christian topic were coming over this way to take up your challenges, and also that I could debate with him and them, because I could not continue my debates once the BBC moderators found an excuse to restrict me from posting last December… truly, an excuse, supposedly, a “reason“, an invisible one, that to this day I was never given ! I was restricted and that was that, no reason given…  

Their omission made me question their reasoning, was it fair moderation, or was it prejudice and bias against one that supported the JW view ?




Hi Lexilogio

With regards to formal debate, one on one, the EvC forum have a section for that type of debate, named “The Great Debate“. You might be able to pick up some ideas on how it is conducted…. Link below. Please scroll down to “The Great Debate“:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi

Home page:

http://www.evcforum.net/

You might need to register and log in to access the forum rules.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Formal debate section
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum