DEBATE-ing on Crossfire

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Tyler wrote (quoting Bro. Frank):

>       >>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 :-)
>  <snip>
>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?


No offense to Bro. Frank, but unless someone was very practiced and fluent
in this method, it might become too cumbersome for email forums.  It might
be a hinderance to some who are not "book" smart, but have a lot of good to
contribute to a discussion.  All I want to do is present my view on a
subject, read (& hopefully understand) someone else's view, and reply.

>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...

<snip>
[Anneliese shakes her head to stop it from spinning!!! :-) ]  Again, unless
you are learned in advanced logic &/or debate methods, this is too hard to
keep track of.  Should we get some graph paper? <g>  What about "cut N
paste"-ing the comment you are referring to with the statements?


>   [whatta we do with a camp C?  What are they allowed?
>    debating might only work with an A & B camps.]

Debating of the type I've seen on this list almost invariably has more than
just 2 "camps".  (Which means I'll need bigger graph paper!) <g>

>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.

Oh no!!! Graph paper, and a notebook, and a protractor, and a compass!!! <g>
[Anneliese clears more shelf space next to the Strong's & Thompson's & Notes
from Judaism class & Notes from OT Theology class & ...] hehehe

>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).

Which is why I advocate keeping this on higher-fire.  First of all, there
are "lurkers" who enjoy reading the debates, yet don't join in.  I think at
least one person has expressed that concern.  Why make them boot up another
list?  Second, by having clearly defined Subjects identified as "DB:..." or
"Debate:...", it makes it easier for those who *don't* want to see debates
to simply engage a filter to "zap" subjects which contain those words -- or
just to "delete" them on sight.

>Bro "stretching himself thinner ... but not lighter" Tyler

If you really want to make so much more work for yourself, there's not much
anyone can do to stop you! <g>  But I still don't see much of a problem with
keeping the debates on HF (as they are likely to creep up there anyway).  At
least with Subject identification, they are easily identifyable [sp?].  BUT,
I will co-operate with whatever the group of capable moderators decides.


[Is this very topic itself a debate?  Or just brainstorming?]
Anneliese