Debate review

[Emily~Anne]

I think the egalitarians really lost their credibility when they tried to say that Genesis 3:16 no longer applies because Christ has set us free from that.

Genesis 3:16 (New International Version)

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

We all know childbirth is still quite painful, so why would only the first half of that verse still apply to today, but not the second half of that verse?

[Neopatriarch]

In my opinion everyone lost. Many had valid opinions and could back the up scripturally, but no one was listening. Which is quite normal for worhtyboards. Awesome points, and no one even willing to consider what they haven't learned from childhood.

I agree 100%, and voted that way, as well. It's fairly standard in these types of discussions for people to try and get their own points across with no interest in learning one way or the other.

I partly agree with this. Personally, these debates help me sharpen my rhetoric and my position. I won't be going over to the egalitarian side of course.

In my experience in debating egalitarians, you often end up going in circles. Maybe "circle" isn't the best word though. It's more of a Gordian knot or maybe it's like a strand of spaghetti weaving and winding it's way through all of the other strands of spaghetti on the plate.

Regarding not listening, I've notice some mistakes egals commonly make when debating comps/patris (my experience here goes beyond the discussion in this forum):

1. They mischaracterize comp views by using stereotypes. For example, if comps say that men are to be like Christ, that is, men are to be 'saviors', egals will find a negative example of a 'savior' (like a cult leader) and tell everyone that is what the comp position says.
   
2. They like to take analogies univocally. In Ephesians 5:21 there is an analogy between Christ and husbands. When comps point this out, arguing that the husband is the head of the wife, egals will claim comps are saying that husbands are Lords (with a capital "L") or Saviors (with a capital "S") as if comps are trying to deify husbands.
   
3. They equivocate. For example, male headship means authority which means dominance which means oppression and tyranny.
   
4. They use a lot of loaded language. They like to say that comps teach "y-chromosome leadership" or use some other reductionistic language to mischaracterize comp views.
   
5. They turn the principle of charity on its head.
   

Probably one of the central problems is a failure to distinguish between role subordination and ontological inferiority. It seems that, for egals, it is axiomatic that role subordination for women entails a view of women that makes them subhuman. This isn't just a doctrine for them. It is a perspective. It colors everything.

-Neopatriarch

[Vickilynn]

Shalom,

I voted everyone because this debate was not an example of debating ISSUES with grace and respect. I dropped out because of the ugliness and quite frankly, the meanness that permeated the posts. One could not follow the discussion without getting distracted by the ungracious posts. They detracted from the real debate and in my opinion, because MOST (not all, but most) of the posters were so rude the issues got buried and everyone lost.

Another reason is that there was no real interaction and replying to statements. Scriptures were posted that proved the valid points and the response was "You haven't proven it by Scripture."

Then, there was double-speak. Especially this one.."We're not talking about husband and wife, but man and woman." This totally de-railed the real issue and was impossible to follow.

And most of the debaters simply repeated over and over without responding to repeated requests to answer certain questions etc.

I don't believe any side made their statements and positions in true G-dly behavior, so I believe everyone lost. The participants, the readers and especially G-d. We did not use this opportunity to "sharpen iron" with one another with grace and Christian love and in the end glorify G-d.

[ColleenLovesMischief]

The posts did being to get a bit onto the personal attacking level. I would suggest we all do some study into how to only be heated over the issue and to leave out the personal stuff (myself included as I get hot headed as well sometimes). Lets use it as a lesson guys. We're still brothers and sisters, and we are prone to hurt each other as well. May we keep God glorified.

[OopsMartin]

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but why does it matter who was the (perceived) winner or loser? I thought debate was for discussion and enrichment, not so there could be an ultimate victor. . .

Agreed. Besides no one really discussed feminism. Several people took great delight in calling people feminists who weren't. And as someone said real discussion was difficult when valid points were not acknowledged or responded to. At least 40% of posts were personal instead of discussion. So I'd have to say , "What debate"? people who discuss for the purpose of winning don't generally really discuss anything.

And for that matter discussion is still ongoing.

[Guest]

I Lost

He must increase, but I must decrease.

John 3:30

so... you won!

Amen!

Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!

[GeneV]

In my opinion everyone lost. Many had valid opinions and could back the up scripturally, but no one was listening. Which is quite normal for worhtyboards. Awesome points, and no one even willing to consider what they haven't learned from childhood.

I agree 100%, and voted that way, as well. It's fairly standard in these types of discussions for people to try and get their own points across with no interest in learning one way or the other.

I'll add an aye to that....glad I looked through all the posts since I would largely be repeating the views expressed above No winners

[apothanein kerdos]

If it had been a scored debate in a competition, the Egalitarians would have lost and/or been disqualified.

[Openly Curious]

I agree with butero,

In my opinion the egalatarians lost the debate.

I am in the patriarchal camp and will remain so.

OC

[minnow]

The attacks on the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture coming from the "egalitarians" was about as compelling and convincing (and using many of the familiar techniques) as those of the homosexual lobby, who also attempt to distort Scripture to promote false teaching.