BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.

The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.

This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort. If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View? If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[death2impiety]

It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it? :think:

Sam didn't seem too concerned with posting at length anyway...if the suggested limit was set at 10,000 words it's likely he'd have used the same amount of space.

All this hooplah about words is so silly. Do you want knowledge and info or not? To limit Bob is to limit your own understanding of the opposition and the truth :think:

 

[RightIdea]

So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.



This decision is highly questionable.....

With a heavy heart, I have to agree here. Unless I am missing something, the rules were a little ambiguous (I agree on that part), but then Knight clarified after round 3 by saying:

Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

Emphasis mine.

I wish it wasn't so, but this is clearly a judgment by the moderator as to the interpretation of the rules. Consequently, this new decision I can view as nothing else but biased and suspect. I do not enjoy saying this in the least, as I'm sure anyone can guess.

Even if Knight "misspoke" in the above quote, it is unfair to Dr. Lamerson at this point to pull such a switcheroo on a technicality, when clearly the reasonable understanding of the rules was at best an average word count of 6,000, rather than just a "recommendation." What was Sam supposed to take this to mean? C'mon, the rules combined with Knight's statement after round 3 clearly infer that massive posts 50% over the "recommended" word limit not only aren't within an "extremely tight" limit of 6,000 words but aren't in the spirit of it, either.

I was fine with the "average word count" interpretation. I don't think that violates anything we've seen on this. But now to just say it was a recommendation?

I wouldn't call the phrase "limit is extremely tight" as a recommendation. Again, I have not had time to pour over every word in the entire debate right now in regards to this specific question, and so if I'm wrong, please let me know, cuz I want to be wrong. But as far as I can tell, Defcon is absolutely right, here.

Sorry, friends.

 

[fool]

Right idea RightIdea.

 

[RightIdea]

At this point, I believe Bob should rescind his post, and have some limited amount of time to reformulate his submission. This would be necessary because he made his post based on the decision of Knight, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to Bob to retroactively take away his post while keeping the time limit, making it impossible for him to post. Bob posted that in good faith (albeit some poor judgment, as I also think Bob should have likewise questioned Knight's decision, as a man of honor). Perhaps one day would be appropriate.

If anyone can think of a better solution, please suggest one! But I do not think it should stand as it is. This is clearly unfair to Dr. Lamerson.

 

[Servo]

If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.

Clete,

If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?

And Bob answered,saying:

No.

So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort.

Who is being intellectually dishonest here?You say that the Lord Jesus was wrong in His belief that the fig tree would bear fruit despite the fact that Bob himself said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

Clete,before you start accusing others of being intellectually dishonest perhaps you should consider Bob's own words.Here he lists a "promise" that the Lord did not keep according to him:

Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).[emphasis mine]

It is you who is either ignorant of what Bob said previously or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

If the Lord Jesus promised to return soon,and then He did not return soon then He broke His promise.But you say that God does not break His promises.If Bob is correct in his interpretation of these verses then it is evident that He did break a promise.

If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View?

I have not mischaracterized a thing that Bob Enyart has said.

If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.

Why is it that when no one defending Bob Enyart has an "intelligent" answer they always end up saying things like "tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared"?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[fool]

Dr. Lamerson should declare victory in light of the obvious jerrymandering that has taken place. I think he was unwise to agree to a debate in his opponents freinds forum.

 

[defcon]

If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

We'll never know. But in the interest of keeping the Battle Royale debates alive, and having qualified individuals participate in the debate, it is best to act with integrity. I'm ok with RightIdea's idea (sounds redundant for some reason) on letting Bob repost. I think probably the best solution is to temporarily remove Bob's post and have Knight get in touch with Bob and Sam to work out a resolution both sides agree on.

 

[Poly]

Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the part of the rules that Sam seemed to overlook (after acknowledging that he had read them) which caused confusion in his post.

 

[drbrumley]

A somewhat decent debate, both sides pretty much talked past each othe with Bob being the one more direct with Samr, and now this.......it's ruined now.

 

[drbrumley]

Both sides made numerous debate errors. Just let it go.

 

[defcon]

Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the rules that Sam seemed to overlook after saying that he had read the rules and agreed to them.

So then remove from Bob's word count the section where he pointed out Sam's error. Geez guys, I think anybody who is reading this Battle Royale knows that the ruling on the word count is unfair. What is being requested to right the situation is not unreasonable.

 

[RightIdea]

Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the part of the rules that Sam seemed to overlook (after acknowledging that he had read them) which caused confusion in his post.

Sam was new here, and very unaccustomed to the somewhat unorthodox rules this site has. And it was entirely reasonable to cut him some slack for that very thing.

When he made a conscious decision to flaunt one particular rule in the second half of the debate (the coding of questions,) it didn't effectively impact the debate, and Bob responded to those questions as if they had been coded.


This isn't even remotedly the same thing. Bob and Knight cannot be excused as being unfamiliar with the rules. On the contrary, the problem is that they made up new rules at the end of round 9. As for Sam, the best thing for him to do, regardless, is to keep his cool and finish the debate, hopefully after working out a solution to this present problem.

But, if this had been pulled on Sam in, for example, round 5 or 6, I wouldn't have faulted him for quitting the debate. Nevertheless, with only one post remaining, Sam should definitely be the "bigger man" here, and finish it.

 

[drbrumley]

So Bob is where? 62,000 words? 65,000?

 

[RobE]

Why not call Sam?

Why not call Sam?

:dog: Why doesn't KNIGHT just ask Sam if the post is acceptable. As far as I see, Bob hasn't made any inroads or 'points' in the debate in his post. Why not let Sam decide. I'm sure he won't mind since he only has to respond to the same questions he's already answered...again and again and again. He'll then be done with the debate. I would like to see Sam answer all the questions in Bob's last post even though it shouldn't shed any new light on the subject matter. It would be nice if Sam would answer the questions directly, let Bob go into his normal diatribe, and end the debate.

 

[Army of One]

I agree with RightIdea and Defcon on this. I think it is reasonable to credit Bob with the word count he used when quoting the rules, but to just do away with the word count all together is only going to cause problems. I would love to hear Bob's argument without any word limitation, but the rules seemed pretty clear from the beginning.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

It sounds as if this "recommendation" decision on word count was made only AFTER Bob was in trouble. I don't agree with it, and it was definitely misleading to say the least. BUT! I haven't felt that Sam came ready to defend his theological position at all costs, because of his short posts and quick responses. Bob has obviously put forth more effort (at least it seems) in this debate and that should be rewarded. We definitely don't want a debate on word count, but on God's foreknowledge, and why limit the discussion because of word count? Here's my solution: Sam needs to be "punished" for not putting forth more effort, and the "use it or lose it" rule should be put in effect, and Bob should get all the words Sam could have used, but did not. Then we may be able to have a 6,000 word average for the debate as a whole. I HIGHLY doubt Bob was counting words as he was writing his posts, and was just doing what he felt necessary to defend his position. In other words, without a word limit in the rules, I GUARANTEE both sides' posts would have been the same posts that they have written thus far. I think this would do Sam more justice on the apparent misleading done to him. (He even talked about it one of his posts that he was watching Bob's word count carefully and no one said a word.) What do you guys think? Knight? Bob? The last thing we need is Sam to decide to leave the debate now. Let's finish this bad boy!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?

Who said word count "doesn't matter"?

Word count does matter.

We don't want to see any 20,000 word essays submitted as posts.

So we asked the participants to keep their posts to a recommended 6,000 words.

 

[SOTK]

A somewhat decent debate, both sides pretty much talked past each othe with Bob being the one more direct with Samr, and now this.......it's ruined now.

:up:

I agree although I am not sure about the "Bob being more direct" part.

At times, both participants have been direct, and at times, both have been ambiguous.

Both sides made numerous debate errors. Just let it go.

Again, I tend to agree.

Personally, I could care less about the 6,000 word rule. I think it almost would have been better if Knight wouldn't have said anything. Dealing with it at the end of the debate and in the manner in which it was dealt with is what has caused the controversy.

At this point, it's probably just best to let it go. There has been nothing but bias on both sides of this debate. I honestly and seriously appreciate both Bob's and Sam's time in this debate, however, each camp is securely entrenched in their theology. I know I haven't commented much but I have read tons. Nobody wavered. The debate and the side discussions which occured due to it showed the same old bias and arguments which have occured since I've been here.