Tal Bachman wrote:[color=darkred] By the way, I couldn't care less whether Mormon Discussions regulars vote me the "winner" or not. Is this really about "winning a debate" for you? I rather imagined that for you, as for me, this wasn't about "winning", but was rather, all about finding the truth, whatever it may be, and however painful it might be. Or is that not what this is all about for you?
This is a valid concern. When one person enters the discussion interested in truth, and the other person enters with a interest in winning, both participants will end up viewing the discussion a waste of time. The person who just wants to win will tend to take insincere, shifting positions in order to find one that wins.
Plutarch wrote:I take it, Tal, that you do not intend to any sort of debate with the very simple ground rules I suggest.
I can understand why you fear the knowledgeable Mormon.
P
Oh, please. "Fear the knowledgeable Mormon"?
It's fascinating to see the distrust on both sides, isn't it?
Do you think my proposal so shocking? Discuss/debate any topic he suggests, so long as I am not required to defend Christianity generally and he/we limit the length of our posts? What a shocking, outrageous proposal! Perhaps he thinks I am not worthy of engagement; or that he lacks the time; these would be legitimate excuses but I haven't seen those proffered.
Are you serious, Plutarch? What do you think I'm driving at with my questions, if not the desire to avoid wasting time debating someone who may not even want to know if the church was a fraud? I made that perfectly explicit! Are you pulling my leg?
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Plutarch wrote:I take it, Tal, that you do not intend to any sort of debate with the very simple ground rules I suggest.
I can understand why you fear the knowledgeable Mormon.
P
Oh, please. "Fear the knowledgeable Mormon"?
It's fascinating to see the distrust on both sides, isn't it?
Do you think my proposal so shocking? Discuss/debate any topic he suggests, so long as I am not required to defend Christianity generally and he/we limit the length of our posts? What a shocking, outrageous proposal! Perhaps he thinks I am not worthy of engagement; or that he lacks the time; these would be legitimate excuses but I haven't seen those proffered.
So, in the absence of what you consider "legitimate excuses" you accuse him of being afraid of you and you call the Dude a coward.
Runtu wrote:The namecaller's response. No big deal.
Well, what would you suggest? Flagellate myself for offering to engage in a debate/discussion with Sir Tal in the first place? On turf friendly to him and completely unfriendly to me? Letting pick his own topics; his own moderators? Gee, what a bad boy I am.
Runtu wrote:The namecaller's response. No big deal.
Well, what would you suggest? Flagellate myself for offering to engage in a debate/discussion with Sir Tal in the first place? On turf friendly to him and completely unfriendly to me? Letting pick his own topics; his own moderators? Gee, what a bad boy I am.
Tal Bachman wrote:Are you serious, Plutarch? What do you think I'm driving at with my questions, if not the desire to avoid wasting time debating someone who may not even want to know if the church was a fraud? I made that perfectly explicit! Are you pulling my leg?
Look, my preconditions are minimal -- not defend Christianity generally and length of posts.
Yours, it appears, requires me to acknowledge in advance the possibilty the Church is a fraud. Or answer a bunch of questions you throw at me in advance.
Like I say, you are just a coward -- looking for reasons not to accept my challenge. Coward. Coward.
I have to sign off and go back to writing my brief. I don't expect acceptance of my offer, but more evasion.