Will Challenges Chris Smith to a Formal Public Debate

[_CaliforniaKid]

Chris Smith should agree to debate Will on a MormonExpression podcast. Then Will can scurry away with his tail between his legs just like he did when Brent called his bluff.

lol. I don't really have time, even if that were a good forum for this kind of debate. And it isn't, really, because it doesn't allow for visual aids.

[_Kishkumen]

lol. I don't really have time, even if that were a good forum for this kind of debate. And it isn't, really, because it doesn't allow for visual aids.

Are you sure? 'Cause Will's ponytail places you at a disadvantage.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Besides, William's idea of debate owes more to Aristotelian rhetoric than dialectical method. I suspect I would lose a rhetorical contest with him, no matter how good my arguments. The man could convince people the moon is made of green cheese. I think I'll stick to dialectical venues like academic journals.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Are you sure? 'Cause Will's ponytail places you at a disadvantage.

Ha! True. I guess an in-person debate wouldn't work, either. ;)

[_Corpsegrinder]

Could somebody help me out here? I’ve tried to watch the videos that Schryver links to on the other forum, but they’re too mind-numbingly dull to sit through. (And I’ve got homework I need to do, and my truck needs an oil change, and my mother-in-law wants me to do an ultrasound on her bladder, etc…)

Does anybody here know enough about what he’s talking about to give me a quick summary?

[_MsJack]

No, I just didn't post them, which is hardly relevant as anyone can go to the original thread and find them there all by themselves.

Your OP made it sound as if Chris's only reply were "One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six (just for the heck of it)," which would sound like mere "chest thumping" (your words) if that were all that he said. But since there were links to all kinds of substantive arguments provided, it wasn't. I found it mildly disingenuous.

And, as Will has been saying for quite sometime now, these responses are not, in any sense, substantive refutations of Will's arguments, but primarily drive-by rock throwing.

It's pretty clear that no matter what is posted in response to William, William and Willpologists such as yourself will throw all kinds of magical hand-waving terms at it in an attempt to dismiss it outright. That's why I prefer to link to what was originally said and let others decide for themselves.

And I have very, very good reason to believe that this is precisely what most silent observers of these threads do.

That is why a lengthy, formal debate in which Chris does more than claim he has refuted Will, but actually does so, if he can, is called for.

Or William could publish on the topic in a peer-reviewed journal (as Chris Smith has), and then Chris and other relevant scholars could weigh in with their thoughts, and a scholarly conversation among informed participants that can't be shut down by the one-sided moderation at an ironically-named "dialogue" forum could take place. I see no reason for Chris to favor the former over the latter, and can think of only one reason why William might prefer the former over the latter.

Well . . . maybe two.

[_Drifting]

But, of course, you beg the question. Neither Joseph nor any of his associates left any documentation of just how the Book of Abraham was produced at all. Hence, perhaps you could provide the documentary evidence of that production process?

Droopy, but we have the actual facsimiles and Joseph's actual translations of them and one of them is directly referenced in the Book of Abraham. So they can be dated and verified and checked to see if when Joseph said "written by his own hand (Abraham) on the papyrus" he was telling the truth. Guess what?

[_Chap]

...

That is why a lengthy, formal debate in which Chris does more than claim he has refuted Will, but actually does so, if he can, is called for.

Or William could publish on the topic in a peer-reviewed journal (as Chris Smith has), and then Chris and other relevant scholars could weigh in with their thoughts, and a scholarly conversation among informed participants that can't be shut down by the one-sided moderation at an ironically-named "dialogue" forum could take place. I see no reason for Chris to favor the former over the latter, and can think of only one reason why William might prefer the former over the latter.

Well . . . maybe two.

Yup.

Over the centuries scholars have evolved more and more effective means of making progress towards agreement on what is or is not the case on the kind of questions where it is a matter of discovering "what really happened".

You publish in a journal with peer-reviewed quality control (which does not of course mean that the reviewers have to certify that you are correct). Then people who don't agree with you get to read your stuff carefully and repeatedly, go to the library to check sources, and (if they want to) discuss the issues with colleagues. Then they think about their counter-case at length, write it down in a form that itself passes the quality control barrier, and eventually get into print. You may then answer back - if you can.

That is what professional scholars see as a 'lengthy, formal debate' worth attending to.

Of course, while Schryver limits himself to posting on message boards (why isn't his work published by now, like that of Chris Smith?), those who disagree with him are perfectly entitled to reply in the same medium and in the modes appropriate to and practicable in that medium.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Goodness gracious. Anyone who thinks I should be accepting Will's challenge need only glance at the thread on the other board for ample evidence of why that would be a waste of time.

[_Shulem]

Goodness gracious. Anyone who thinks I should be accepting Will's challenge need only glance at the thread on the other board for ample evidence of why that would be a waste of time.

Amen. Don't waste your time debating with William. It isn't worth it. Anything else you do will net greater benefits for you.

William is an apostate troll that hasn't managed to climb out from under the bridge, yet. But when he does, look out! He is going to be mighty pissed.

Paul O