Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_Runtu]

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.

P

For what it's worth, I can see your point, and I can understand Tal's. I would not want to debate someone who isn't interested in truth. That seems to be what Tal is asking, that you let us know whether you are interested in knowing the truth or just in scoring debating points. If it's the latter, then by all means it's a waste of time talking to you.

[_moksha]

I think I would be cautious about this debate. What if FARMS had gotten a hold of Deep Blue, IBM's chess playing computer, and programed it full of LDS scriptures plus the combined wit and wisdom of Drs. Peterson and Hamblin and nicknamed it Plutarch for its neo-platonic take on logic? Even though it could no longer play chess, it could be wily in other ways.

[_beastie]

I've lurked/alternately read at various LDS/ExLDS boards for years, and recognize certain names that establish a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects, and recognize both McCue's and Tal's names for that reason. However, I don't recall ever hearing of "Plutarch" before. Have you posted regularly under some other screen name? Where have you established a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects? Can you link us to some?

[_wenglund]

I've lurked/alternately read at various LDS/ExLDS boards for years, and recognize certain names that establish a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects, and recognize both McCue's and Tal's names for that reason. However, I don't recall ever hearing of "Plutarch" before. Have you posted regularly under some other screen name? Where have you established a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects? Can you link us to some?

With all due respect to all, I think you are confusing "knowedgeable" with "popular".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

I've lurked/alternately read at various LDS/ExLDS boards for years, and recognize certain names that establish a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects, and recognize both McCue's and Tal's names for that reason. However, I don't recall ever hearing of "Plutarch" before. Have you posted regularly under some other screen name? Where have you established a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects? Can you link us to some?

Beastie, you probably know Plutarch as a number of other names: Bishop Lee, Lee Bishop, Enter the Dragon, rcrockett, to name a few.

And I see no reason for a debate on any subject connected to the church between Plutarch and Tal, unless they both like to waste time. Because that's what this debate would be: a complete waste of time. No one would change anyone's mind, no one would admit their opponent may have a legitimate reason for believing as he does, no one would admit the other had a point. Both sides are dug in already, positions locked in stone. So what would be the point of a debate?

[_Tal Bachman]

On the contrary, Harmony. My position is not locked in stone at all. I would be happy to be corrected where I am wrong, and I mean that sincerely. And I am always happy to engage in conversation with others who feel the same way.

[_harmony]

On the contrary, Harmony. My position is not locked in stone at all. I would be happy to be corrected where I am wrong, and I mean that sincerely. And I if am always happy to engage in conversation with others who feel the same way.

Sorry, Tal. (and by the way, I'm happy to make your acquaintance and welcome to the board. I'm too Mormon for RfM and was banned from there long ago).

Let me rephrase: it's useless to debate anyone who's position is locked in stone, which is a fair representation of Plutarch's position. If only one debater is open to correction, the debate is doomed from the start. Both debaters have to see the possibility of them being wrong.

[_jayneedoe]

When two people are discussing the terms of a debate and one starts shouting "Coward" while still in negotiations (though the "shouter" doesn't seem to recognize this), no real debate is possible.

Indeed, the "shouter" has already displayed an inability to engage in fair discourse. Very juvenile.

Jaynee

[_Runtu]

I've lurked/alternately read at various LDS/ExLDS boards for years, and recognize certain names that establish a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects, and recognize both McCue's and Tal's names for that reason. However, I don't recall ever hearing of "Plutarch" before. Have you posted regularly under some other screen name? Where have you established a history of knowledgable posts in certain subjects? Can you link us to some?

With all due respect to all, I think you are confusing "knowedgeable" with "popular".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

What a telling post. There seems to be this sort of junior-high mentality among some on the boards, as if there's an "in" crowd of popular people and the rest of us losers. So, when someone like Tal or Bob posts something, we can petulantly dismiss it as being "popular" and thus without merit.

Speaking as one of the unpopular, I suggest that we focus on the merits of the discussion and not on how many votes Bob McCue got for 7th-grade prom king.

[_rcrocket]

When two people are discussing the terms of a debate and one starts shouting "Coward" while still in negotiations (though the "shouter" doesn't seem to recognize this), no real debate is possible.

Indeed, the "shouter" has already displayed an inability to engage in fair discourse. Very juvenile.

Jaynee

Perhaps.

Let me address some of the posters here.

I don't pretend to be able to persuade Bachman, nor do I think he can do the same for me. Public debate is rarely intended to persuade a particular person to change his view, but rather to affect public view. After all, political debates are not designed to change the other's point of view, any more than the highly public debates between Luther and Eck.

In this case, debate is offered to demonstrate to the readers of this board to fallacies and absurdities of some of the more populist anti-Mormon ex-Mormon views rampant on RFM where I am not allowed to post.

I don't impose any preconditions upon Bachman at all, except that he limit the length of individual posts and that he not require me to defend Christianity in general (miracles, the resurrection; only because much more capable folks than Bachman or I have done so).

Again, to restate, I don't think Bachman needs to accept my challenge if (1) he lacks the time, or (2) he thinks I am unqualified. I don't need to defend my qualifications. But, I don't pretend to think I should force my qualifications down somebody's throat. All Bachman has to do is say -- no, not interested.

But that isn't what is happening here. He is demanding I answer a host of questions in advance. He won't say yea or nay. He insists upon my concession that I might think the Church is a fraud. And, worst of all, he reaches back into old posts of mine and claims that I have said things I haven't (the absurd claim that I didn't know that polygamy was abhorred in Victorian 19th century).

And, so, I resort to name-calling with the hope that he'll rise to the challenge with that. Well, it didn't work. Instead, I am castigated for doing so. I'll pack my bags and wait for the next challenge.

P