DEBATE-ing on Crossfire
Tyler Nally (tnally@iquest.net)
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:46:04 -0500
At 08:13 AM 10/27/98 -0600, you wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:59:16 -0500 "Caryle Clear" <cpcj@sprynet.com>
>writes:
>>EXAMPLE:
>>All posts *supporting* "View A: Women=No Spiritual Authority" will
>>ONLY post to that subject line
>>All posts *supporting* "View B: Women=Forbidden in Past, Permitted in
>>Present" will ONLY post to that subject line
>>** [As opposed to posting an *opposing* view within "View A"s
>>territory.
>>Likewise, all posts *supporting* "View C: Women=Forbidden at Home,
>>Permitted
>>w/ Church" will ONLY post to that subject line.
><snip>
>
>So far, I like this idea the best.
>
>I'm not sure how well debating with a team captain would work because the
>captain would be restating what was told to him/her and we may lose some
>of the original flavor of the post (sometimes for good, sometimes for
>bad).
I can see good points and bad points to having a team captain.
Good points (and the captains would have to be great at organization
and document presentation)....which would make it a strong document.
The bad point would be if the captain is hit by a bus... then the
DEBATE halts.
>I would not like debating for a side that I am not on. (What if I won? :) )
In talking with Bro Frank about debating, I asked him of the different styles
of debate... he said that one of the styles, Individual Style, is argued
thusly...
>>In the individual style you ague one proposition
>>three times (i.e. "The saints on H-f are the most
>>closed-minded people alive" to take Bro. Reed's
>>suggestion :-)
>>After those three times another proposition is set
>>up (i.e. "The saints of H-F are the most loving,
>>godly folk alive today no one's suggestion at this
>>point :-) The positive of the first resolution is
>>the negative of this one, and the negative of the
>>first one is the positive of this one. Doing it this
>>way ensures that when you are in the negative you
>>will stick to discussing your opponent's arguments
>>and not go off on a tangeant, because you will have or
>>have had a chance to be the positive speaker and your
>>arguments would be the focus at that point. Is that
>>clearer?
Well the first thing I don't want is a free-for-all atmosphere
in Crossfire@onelist.com. It has to go by rules or order.
So.... for example the DEBATE starts with a "Be It Resolved That"
statement...
"BIRT - The Saints of Higher-Fire are the most closed minded people alive"
Whether captains are appointed or not... saints will have to come
forward and give an initial statement (postive, negative, other) [3-way
almost makes my head spin].... hopefully one one statment per camp
that goes along the lines of positive, negative, or otherwise of the initial
BIRT....
Then the rounds begin...
camp A (+) camp B (-) camp C (/)
round 1 ... FOR AGIN OTH (+/-)
round 2 ... FOR AGIN OTH (+/-)
round 3 ... FOR AGIN OTH (+/-)
Then a new BIRT *opposite* of the first one...
"BIRT - The Saints of Higher-Fire are the most open minded people alive"
camp A (+) camp B (-) camp C (/)
round 4 ... AGIN FOR OTH (+/-)
round 5 ... AGIN FOR OTH (+/-)
round 6 ... AGIN FOR OTH (+/-)
[whatta we do with a camp C? What are they allowed?
debating might only work with an A & B camps.]
summarization round where everybody gets their say....
conclusion... voting time, leave it up to a moderator,
declare a winner of DEBATE or what?
>If we only posted to certain subject lines I think it would take some of
>the emotionalism out of it which I think is the Number 1 problem. Even if
>someone responded very emotionally, the psychological factor of not
>posting directly may have a softening effect. (Then again, it may not
>work at all, but this could be tried with minimum effort contrary to the
>other idea.)
Yeah... probably something along those lines would be appropriate.
>Bro. Nally is right about the "Did So!!".........."Did Not!!" I think we
>might have more productive discussion with more people posting if people
>felt that they were being listened to.
Wellllllll.... I wish I were right on more things..... thanks Sis.
>I appreciate the moderators for trying to better the system. I hope we
>can find a workable solution that everyone can be (at least partly) happy
>with. Lord bless you.
I think we'd need a glossary of terms to go with discussion as things
like "order" and "points of call" and whatever the different aspects of
debating need to be addressed so that we can go about this in a timely
and not-too-strainfully manner. This should go into the welcome document
that people get when they sign up... remember, this isn't for Higher-Fire,
this is for Crossfire (crossfire@onelist.com). There are probably some
that don't want to see debates... but yet there's always been a need to
maybe go a little deeper or probe the strengths and weakness of different
things in the oneness apostolic pentecostal (supposedly christian ...<ahem>
...community).
Maybe if Crossfire works, it can give us reason to start a list that's
only Bible-study only type posts like a wednesday night bible study or
something.
The thing I don't want on Crossfire is chit-chat. Higher-Fire is the
friendly fellowship hall place. We're just creating a DEBATE room off
to the side of it whereby we can put some of these notions that we have
on TRIAL for discussion. It might get really lengthy. Which is o.k.
Higher-Fire, I don't think, should receive the debates as it just won't
work... but I'll consider putting the digests of Crossfire in the Higher-Fire
archives... so that anybody can get to them easily.
Bro "stretching himself thinner ... but not lighter" Tyler
--
Bro Tyler Nally
<tnally@iquest.net> <tgnally@prairienet.org> <tn@higherfire.org>
Higher-Fire Oneness Apostolic Emailing List
Send e-mail to ...
listproc@prairienet.org
a) ... To Subscribe SUB HIGHER-FIRE Your Name
b) ... To UnSubscribe UNSUB HIGHER-FIRE
c) ... To Postpone Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL POSTPONE
d) ... To Resume Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL ACK
e) ... To Change to H-F Digests SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL DIGEST
f) ... To Check H-F Settings SET HIGHER-FIRE
g) ... To Review H-F Subscription REVIEW HIGHER-FIRE
H-F Homepage : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/h-f.html
H-F WWW Archives : http://www.higherfire.org
H-F Nettiquette : http://www.higherfire.org/netiq.html
H-F F.A.Q. : http://www.higherfire.org/FAQ.html
H-F KJV Bible : http://www.higherfire.org/kjv
H-F QuickTour : http://www.prairienet.org/~tgnally/HigherFireTour.html
H-F Questionaire : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/questions.html
"...prefer to hear educated blessings preach than ignorant blessing!"
- Bro Robert Jay Brown III
Crossfire@onelist.com ... the DEBATE room of Higher-Fire ....
URL to Subscribe : http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/crossfire
URL to Archives : http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/crossfire