Guys, this is BY FAR the best debate site on the Internet. I have no real complaint, but more of a concern.
Lucanus Quell’s lengthy and self-aggrandizing “debate” entitled “Who killed Jesus?”
is by far not even close to a debate.
He writes nonsensically and refuses to use anything but one resource to argue his points. He has never shown he wants to debate on any part of his understanding of the bible.
Here’s examples of why this should’ve been moved to the Pit or blocked:
" I want to teach. I want my mind to be challenged by others and I want to challenge the minds of others. " post #77. - his other responses prove he hardly reads the responses by other dopers, just testifies.
"BTW! Jesus wasn’t killed or murdered by anyone. He laid down His life, freely giving His life. No one took Jesus’ life. Why? How do I know? Because Jesus is alive. If anyone took His life Jesus would be dead. But Jesus is alive!
He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today! He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way. He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart. You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart." - post #97. With this tirade, he already HAS his answer and is only willing to hear those that agree. This is proof the thread should’ve ben closed and/or moved to the Pit.
I appreciate all the moderating on this debate site and really think it is done professionally except for this one. I think what I quoted above was easily missed due to his random-thought style of writing. I spent a couple of hours looking for these statements myself! I knew he admitted not being interested in debate, so there it is.
Keep up the good work, guys and gals, this type of poster is probably headed for disappointment anyway…
For some reason religious witnessing without debate is allowed in GD. I think the history has something to do with the old board war with the Left Behind board. It seems odd to me, but there you are.
I don’t think he’s really capable of engaging other posters. I suppose techincally there’s a debate in there somewhere, but I doubt if he’s the guy to express it. I think the board wouldn’t be as fun without the passing crazy person, but when you respond to them you’re just playing “let’s bait this person and see what they say next.” Hopefully you and the other responders know you’re not going to get anything out of him but non-sequitors.
Religious witnessing is allowed in GD because it’s the area of the board in which opinions on politics and religion are debated. But “without debate” is in error. Billy Witnesser is more than welcome to tell us all about Jesus – and anyone (like Der Trihs) who finds what he has to say loathsome is welcome to tell him that.
As a sincere Christian who does not believe 90% of the hokum associated with “cultural Christianity”, I find it a worthwhile place to discuss such stuff – because 95% of the witnessers have facts wrong and others will fill them in on that – but then you can, so to speak, separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of post content.
Way back when we started the boards, we did have people who wanted to come and “witness.” We decided to put all such in one forum, Great Debates, and let others rip into 'em.
Witnessing belongs in IMHO, imho. If someone has a problem with it, then it can be taken to the pit. Witnessing does express an opinion but it usually is not presented as a debate topic. Whatever impulse led to it’s inclusion in GD is long out of date.
I haven’t read much from ITR but kanic does not witness. He does engage in debates. There is a big dose of crazy in his debates but he does engage other posters and argue his points. Those that witness are just preaching. Not too much of that goes on here. When it does the board rules allow it to happen in GD. The fact that people attempt to debate someone who is preaching and uninterested in debate baffles me.
Lacunas Quell may have started out the thread with a bit of plain old fashioned witnessing, but towards the end, he’s certainly debating. He makes a point, someone tells him that point isn’t correct, and he comes back and explains his side.
Witnessers typically don’t think it’s just an opinion. And usually, more serious topics end up in Great Debates - the description for IMHO does include “less-than-cosmic topics.” Most religions are cosmic by definition.
Possibly a little. But the forum description for IMHO does say “For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics.”
So in Great Debates, people argue over the merits of different religions or different political viewpoints; in IMHO they argue over the merits of different ski boots or different ways of wiping their butts.
We may be defining “witness” differently. One can witness & debate simultaneously. kanicbird inserts his/her views into every debate. Check out the Obama citizenship thread in the Banana Pit, or the SUV-owner-evil thread in GD.
Well, yeah, we did. That’s why we took those actions in the past. At the past time, we did have such people (whether we still do is irrelevant) and so we did (in the past) set up the rule that all witnessing goes in Great Debates. It’s grammar. Or perhaps grampar.
