How about a debate forum?

[Hazelelponi]

This has been suggested a few times over the years and simply put, it ain't happening.

People already can't handle the non-stop debate that goes on in other sub-forums here.

Actual debate has very specific rules - and post count is limited. It usually calls for an opening post from each opponent (2 people total), and allows for usually around 3 - 5 rebuttals and a closing argument.

After both people close, it is taken to a vote as to who "won" the debate, the winner has the most convincing argument.

I love love love actual debate... Plus, it's shorter threads that are very well thought out, without any rif raf..

 

[Hazelelponi]

P.S. my vote is for a debate forum!

 

[Live4Him3]

I love love love actual debate... Plus, it's shorter threads that are very well thought out, without any rif raf..

The "riff-raff", as you called them, definitely are a major problem on this website and many others.

Sad to say, I've personally determined that it's pretty much impossible to get any real doctrine out here for consideration to one's actual target audience. I mean, you start a thread (or blog) or just make a post, and, the next thing that you know, a bunch of undesirables jump in and start a ruckus. Along comes somebody who might actually be interested in the topic at hand and might actually benefit from it, and they see all of the infighting, and they just walk away from the thread because they don't want to have to sift through pages of garbage in search of a morsel of actual food.

And so it goes...

 

[Hazelelponi]

The "riff-raff", as you called them, definitely are a major problem on this website and many others.

Sad to say, I've personally determined that it's pretty much impossible to get any real doctrine out here for consideration to one's actual target audience. I mean, you start a thread (or blog) or just make a post, and, the next thing that you know, a bunch of undesirables jump in and start a ruckus. Along comes somebody who might actually be interested in the topic at hand and might actually benefit from it, and they see all of the infighting, and they just walk away from the thread because they don't want to have to sift through pages of garbage in search of a morsel of actual food.

And so it goes...

I think that's exactly why a debate forum would be beneficial. Get it started with a couple people who are knowledgeable so people see what it looks like, then see who else would like to set a debate.

That leaves a lot of food easily seen without the need to sift

 

[Live4Him3]

I think that's exactly why a debate forum would be beneficial. Get it started with a couple people who are knowledgeable so people see what it looks like, then see who else would like to set a debate.

That leaves a lot of food easily seen without the need to sift

I agree.

Btw, in case you didn't already notice, I started this thread, so you're preaching to the choir.

I've seen a debate forum work perfectly fine on another website, but it looks like it's already been determined that one is never coming here, so I just let it go after making my initial suggestion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I agree.

Btw, in case you didn't already notice, I started this thread, so you're preaching to the choir.

I've seen a debate forum work perfectly fine on another website, but it looks like it's already been determined that one is never coming here, so I just let it go after making my initial suggestion.

Why not do it in the main forum?
Each debate needs 3 threads. One thread is where you 1.) Find a single opponent then 2) set the rules for the debate.

Once that is set two more threads need to be opened - 1.) For the debate itself and 2.) For public comments about the debate itself as well as the debate topic.

If forum members are respectful, they won't enter the debate thread itself.

 

[Live4Him3]

If forum members are respectful, they won't enter the debate thread itself.

Good luck (not that I believe in luck) with that.

Also, if it's not a forum that is formally set apart for one-on-one debates, then a lot of people might innocently jump into the conversation.

Anyhow, personally, I've abandoned hope of it happening here, but I'm happy to see that some others here see the potential benefit of it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Good luck (not that I believe in luck) with that.

Also, if it's not a forum that is formally set apart for one-on-one debates, then a lot of people might innocently jump into the conversation.

Anyhow, personally, I've abandoned hope of it happening here, but I'm happy to see that some others here see the potential benefit of it.

Well you're probably correct... But it's a real nice suggestion - I clearly don't understand why the site administration doesn't want to give it a shot.

I've done debate on another site that has a specific debate forum and truly enjoyed it. It wasn't Christian faith related, but knowing how it works it's easy to see how well it would work for faith related topics.

Maybe someday - something to pray for.

 

[Live4Him3]

A one-on-one debate is sort of like a heavyweight fight.

Only three people in the ring...the two opponents and the referee/moderator.

Everybody else is sitting in the stands, figuratively speaking, and they're free to root for whoever they want, but they're not free to step into the ring themselves...at least not initially.

In other words, when the debate is finished between the two opponents, there might be people who were sitting in the stands who feel that they could have presented a better argument than the person who seemingly lost the debate, and then they would be free to challenge the perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) winner to a follow-up debate themselves.

Again, sort of like somebody challenging the heavyweight champion to a new fight.

Anyhow, although I'm using "fight" analogies, I'm truly not here to fight, but rather to hopefully present Biblical truths that might actually help people.

 

[Hazelelponi]

A one-on-one debate is sort of like a heavyweight fight.

Only three people in the ring...the two opponents and the referee/moderator.

Everybody else is sitting in the stands, figuratively speaking, and they're free to root for whoever they want, but they're not free to step into the ring themselves...at least not initially.

In other words, when the debate is finished between the two opponents, there might be people who were sitting in the stands who feel that they could have presented a better argument than the person who seemingly lost the debate, and then they would be free to challenge the perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) winner to a follow-up debate themselves.

Again, sort of like somebody challenging the heavyweight champion to a new fight.

Anyhow, although I'm using "fight" analogies, I'm truly not here to fight, but rather to hopefully present Biblical truths that might actually help people.

Amen to that!

 

[Cameron143]

That's why it has to be a relatively new subject matter. Like an interpretation of a particular passage that hasn't been beaten to death in CC already.

An often misquoted verse that people use and when you hear them you think... "That is not what that means" but they want to argue about it. That would be a good topic for a debate that requires us to demonstrate why it is being misused.

Finding one we disagree about might be a challenge.

How about this one:

6I am sure of this, that he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Phil 1:6

I often hear this one used to say that the work of salvation and sanctification that God started he will continue until He has completed it in me when I am resurrected.

Now I am not so sure that is what Paul was intending the Phillippians to understand him as saying. It may be true but I think people are misunderstanding what Paul was saying to the Phillippians.

I have heard someone who seemed to be in a backslidden state use it as a comforting verse as if to say "God is not through with me" and that "God will finish what he started before I got in this sad situation" .... and they just keep quoting this as their hope that they will someday become better.

I don't think that is what this verse is saying.

What do you think? If we disagree I can start a debate thread.

I do think it is a verse to provide comfort to believers but not in that particular case and it certainly has implications concerning a number of other doctrines. I think the verse is misunderstood in your example however and does reflect the need for our exercise.

 

[GaryA]

Idea/Suggestion:

Create all debate threads with a title that starts with '[DEBATE]' or 'DEBATE:' - followed by a single space and then the title of the debate.

 

[GaryA]

Yes my intention is to show people how to present a case for an interpretation using the rules of hermeneutics.

Wouldn't that be better accomplished as a 'How To' thread? (blog)

 

[Amanuensis]

Wouldn't that be better accomplished as a 'How To' thread? (blog)

It would just end up as an argument over the word Hermeneutics being man made. LOL.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

Not sure why people going on about this. Or putting in their "vote". It's already been said it'll never happen. Nothing to vote on.

 

[Amanuensis]

Not sure why people going on about this. Or putting in their "vote". It's already been said it'll never happen. Nothing to vote on.

Maybe you don't understand what is being discussed.

We can start a voting poll on a topic with several possible interpretations on a verse for people to vote on. People do it now.

We can start a thread and a voting poll with a couple of different names in the list to vote on for a discussion so that people can vote on who is making the better case for an interpretation. Nothing new there.

The Moderator is talking about no plans to do any kind of special debate forums or coding for one. He's not banning people from starting a thread with a voting poll in Bible discussion forum.

A real debating forum would take people and special coding and no one is available or interested in doing all that. Good luck finding the volunteers to make that work.

That would be best handled by a different site altogether. Chrisitanbibledebate.com

 

[Moses_Young]

Years ago, I was a member of another Christian forum (I honestly don't remember which one) where they had a "debate" forum.

If I recall correctly, then it was broken down into two sections:

1. A sub-forum where a debate challenge could be given on any topic and where a debating opponent would ultimately be chosen.
2. A forum where there was a one on one debate between two members with opposing views on any topic.

The one on one debate was broken down into 5 parts:

In part 1, each side gave their opening arguments in separate posts...one on the "pro" side of the debate, and one on the "con" side of the debate.

In parts 2 through 4, each side could either just amplify their side of the argument, or rebut what the other side had said, or both.

In part 5, each side gave their closing arguments in separate posts.

In the debates, nobody would be allowed to comment but the two chosen debaters. On the other website, I think that they had what they called a "peanut gallery" where other members could offer their opinions on the debate, but they were not allowed to enter into the debate themselves.

Of course, time limitations would also be given in relation to how soon each side needed to present their side of the debate during the different stages of the debate. On the other website, I think that it was either 24 or 48 hours.

The reason why I'm suggesting this is because so many threads get derailed quickly or simply interrupted by so many different people with so many different opinions that it's oftentimes hard or even burdensome to follow along. Personally, I've stopped following a lot of different threads here because of the aforementioned reasons.

Anyhow, is something like this a possibility on this site?

I know that there are some topics that I wouldn't mind having a one on one debate about.

Please let me know.

Thank you.

Why don't we use this thread to debate whether we should have a debate forum? I will represent the 'against' side.

 

[Karlon]

we need 2 professional psychologists to teach on how to debate. the American style of debating is selfish, deflecting, inattentive, hasty, subject changing, "off on tangents", controlling & usually dull!

 

[GaryA]

I am guessing that you would prefer that neither of them be American psychologists?

 

[Karlon]

I am guessing that you would prefer that neither of them be American psychologists?

not necessarily, you can't cheat or lie when you"re a psychologist.