Formal Debate Proposed

I have challenged and Scott Emerson has accepted to have a formal debate. If Scott declines to participate, I am willing to formally debate any other Arminian/non-Calvinist, per the setup below.

Here are six topics I would suggest for this formal debate and who defends what position -

1) Man's ability(Scott) or inability(Ken)?

2) Election – particular(Ken) or non-particular(Scott)?

3) Atonement – general(Scott) or definite(Ken)?

4) Regeneration – monergistic(Ken) or synergistic(Scott)?

5) Peserverance – maybe(Scott) or certain(Ken)?

6) Calvinism's Effect on Evangelism – energizing(Ken) or deadening(Scott)?

No pejorative language allowed and no attacks on any individual, living or dead.

-----------------------------------------------

Also, Clint Kritzer suggested the following in an earlier thread about this –

An example of this platform would be:

1. Opening remarks
2. First rebuttals
3. Second rebuttals
4. Conclusionary remarks

Each of these essays would be submitted to the moderator of the debate via email and would not be posted by the moderator until both debaters had submitted their response. Each step of the debate would have a word limit, such as:

1. Opening remarks - 750 words
2. First rebuttals - 1000 words
3. Second rebuttals - 1500 words
4. Conclusionary remarks - 1000 words

As each submission is admitted, the thread would be immediately closed. A parallel thread for discussion by the membership would be established.

Ground rules would also need to be established such as the allowance of UBB coding, the citing of links for source of quotes only (to protect the integrity of the word limit), time limits for responses to be submitted, formatting opponents quotations in UBB coding being held against or not held against the word count, etc.

Needless to say, the posting rules of the Baptist Board at large would also apply. A panel of judges could also be established if the participants wished to have the debate judged. This option was not established before.

-----------------------------------------------

I would suggest we have a week between each phase of our response. For example, we could have opening remarks due to the debate moderator by May 11, the first rebuttals due by May 18, etc. This would give us a 24 week debate to cover all 6 topics.

Is this okay with you, Scott? Please make any suggestions you might have.

Now, who will step forward to be the debate moderator and set the formal ground rules. I have no preference, Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

 

I would also throw the idea into the pot that even an outside moderator from this forum could be moderator.

Brother Dallas, the moderator is simply to enforce the ground rules. He doesn't have to be well schooled on either side of the debate. The moderator is to make sure we keep it between the ditches so to speak. And I am confident that you as well as several others could admirably perform that task.

So we are down to needing a moderator being selected and Scott agreeing, or someone else if Scott decides to decline, to belly up to the bar, so to speak, and agree on the subjects to be debated and the ground rules.

 

Brother Clint would be a good one. Also, I noticed that Helen is a BB moderator in another forum. I think she would do a good job, also.

 

That's why we debate. But ultimately, God does.

 

Hey, Scott, where are you?

 

Great.

Now we need a debate moderator. MODERATOR! WE NEED A MODERATOR!

 

I will not be on this board much during the next week as I will be traveling out of town for 5 out of the next 8 days through next Sunday for dog agility classes and AKC agility trials.

I am set up to receive an email notification when anyone responds to this thread. So if a moderator is named and the ground rules are set up, I'll know about them when they are posted in this thread.

I hope we can get this debate started in the next few weeks.