Worthy Christian Forums -> Soapbox Debate

Hello all,

The Soapbox debate forum is set up so that people can have one on one discussions on a different range of topics and discuss these topics at length without fear of someone "hijacking" the thread and forcing one of the moderators to take action and removing the entire discussion permaturely before opposing viewpoints are fully and accurately discussed.

If you are interested in debating someone on a specific topic, then feel free to PM me what topic you are interested in discussing and with whom you wish to discuss the topic.

Everyone may read the soapbox debate, although ONLY those designated to debate the topic may be involved.

You will now see a new category of members -- Soapbox -- Undecided and Soapbox -- Members. These members have asked to debate a specific topic in the soapbox debate.

Your brother in Christ with much agape love,

George

Grace to you,

This Soapbox will not be a debate but a discussion that IMO is at the core purpose of this Ministry. It is for the edification of the believer. Two of our more gifted brethren at Worthy, Shiloh357 and Botz, will discuss the Temple described in Ezekial 40-48 and it's implications. With the objective of getting at a revelation of the Truth.

As always;

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.


Peace,
Dave

Grace to you,


CSLewis has invited Shiloh357 to a debate over Semantics and Literalism. This started over the debate about Creationsim and Evolution.


Here are the guidlines;

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.

Peace,
Dave

Welcome to the Soapbox.

This thread will be a debate between Shiloh357 and ParanoidAndroid.

I will let them flesh out the topic in depth. They will explore through debate a literal or non literal understanding of the Biblical Creation acccount in Genesis and it's affect on our understanding of the nature of sin and our Salvation.

Here are the rules;

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

God Bless and may God increase all of our Understanding as we Pray for Gods Truth to be revealed.

Peace,
Dave

Welcome to the Soapbox.

Let me lay down the rules and introduce the thread.

Here are da rules;

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.



RunningGator will be debating Butero.

Butero will take the stance that the KJV is the only correct English version of the Bible.

RunningGator will take the stance that it is not.

Gentelmen, please be mindful of "Da Rules."

Opening statements will soon follow.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.

Peace,
Dave

Greetings Saint's and those interested,

This will be a debate between Shiloh357 and Samuel Cripps about the Biblical merits, or not, of Universal Salvation.

Here are the rules;

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.

Peace,
Dave

Grace to you,

Thoughtful has extended an offer for a debate on the merits of Preterism and Shiloh357 has accepted.

Here are the guidlines;

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.

Peace,
Dave

Brothers and Sisters,

This is a discussion between tsth and LadyC regarding the Biblical view on Divorce.

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Let's pray for God's TRUTH to be revealed through this discussion.

May the Lord Bless us,
wayne

For our first "Soapbox" debate I am going to open up the floor to a polite debate/discussion with "Agnostic Front," who has agreed to discuss the following issue with me:



But before we begin debating this issue formally, I would like to suggest a few parameters/rules:

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Agnostic Front, please feel free to add any further points to this list, or modify them. Otherwise, if you are agreeable to these terms, then we can begin our debate.

Much Grace,

~O

This thread will be a debate between Ovedya and Brother Chad. Brother Chad will attempt to dispute the Biblical trinity and Ovedya will attempt to defend the Biblical Trinity. Both sides have agreed to the following terms:

1) Each side will take consideration to and respect for each question and point, and will address each question and point until the discussions are resolved within themselves.

2) All forms of fallacy will be rigorously avoided. (For a list of fallacies, refer to the following: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ )

3) Answers to questions will be answers, not questions or assumptions of "What I thought you were saying."

4) No newer postings of threads to the forums regarding the Trinity will be added or added to by either party until this debate is finished.

Also, I would like to add some other items to be agreed upon before we begin:

5) All postings must be the original work of the author. Outside resources (websites) may be used, and textual references within posts (cut-n-paste) are allowed provided that proper citation is made, however, no more than 1/3 of the total post may be outside source work. Attempts to plagiarize someone else's work will constitute an immediate surrender of the debate.

6) Direct or indirect accusations of "Not being a Christian because..." are absolutely forbidden. Although both sides may ultimately disagree over certain matters (And both sides may eventually "agree to disagree), the questioning of one's salvation over these matters is not even in the realm of consideration.

7) Delays of minutes, hours, or even days will not constitute a surrender of the debate. We all have lives outside the Worthy forums. Please respect that immediate responses will not at all times be practicable. However, proper consideration should be made to the fact that this is a debate, and both sides should try to respond in a time frame that is at least reasonable.

8) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to first state your point, and then support that point with evidence. It is up to the [i[readers[/i] of the debate to decide which argument holds more weight.

If Brother Chad agrees to the items I've added here, I will allow him the liberty to post first.

Brother Chad, please add your first stating your position on the doctrine of the Trinity, supported with evidence. I will respond in-kind to each point and add an argument of my own.

Dear brothers and sisters,

This is a discussion on soul sleep as Trinity and Old Timer exchange their thoughts and positions.

Our hope is that we can learn from this discussion and grow as believers,

Your brother in Christ with much agape love,

George

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

The Topic
“Is there an intelligent metaphysical beginning to the universe or did it occur via naturalistic means?”

Areas of focus would be –

Cosmology
Anthropology
Morality
Biology

You do not have to debate all four of those at all and feel free to select one (in fact, this might be beneficial as to limit the debate). I’ll let you select which of the four you think would be more appropriate to debate in this construct. Granted, in proving one of the four the others might be referred to, but I am speaking of the main thrust of arguments.

Structure of the debate
Being that I would be taking the side of affirming the topic (that yes there is an intelligent metaphysical beginning to all things) and you are negating, I would take the first “speech.” Using normal debate structures in competitive philosophical debate, the debate would look like this –

Affirmative constructive (max of 4,000 words) – this is where the affirmative can build his case for his belief

Negative constructive (max of 6,000 words) – this is where the negative can refute the affirmative as well as build his case for his belief

Affirmative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – where the affirmative can respond to and defend his case

Negative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – negative does the same and makes closing comments

Affirmative rebuttal (max of 6,000 words) – finishes his defense and makes closing comments

Ethics
Obviously the debate would be moderated and thus any perceived ad hominem attacks would be reported. A verified ad hominem attack would result in a warning the first two times, with the third time disqualifying the person from the debate.

Examples of ad hominem would be, “You’re going to hell for this,” “How can you possibly believe in God when it’s so stupid,” etc.

The time limit between responses should not be abusive. Seeing as how we both are busy people (at least I know I am) with other stuff to do in the real world, I am not opposed to an entire month being allowed between the constructive, and two weeks for the rebuttals (as this will merely be bringing back points and no research should be required).