A Debate Proposal for Matt Sherman
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:34:25 -0800 (00920511265, 2.2.32.19990303193425.0087c8d4@midwest.net)
>> TILL
>> Well, I'm more than happy to accommodate you and give you the chance to
>> take me apart. In an earlier posting, you made the following statement in
>> regard to my challenge that you present extrabiblical corroboration of
>> miraculous claims in the Bible:
>>
CARTER
>>> I would be pleased to do so now. Evidence remains of a quick, intelligent
>>> creation of the universe and life by a personal being. Evidence remains
>>> of fulfilled prophecy between OT and NT times. Evidence remains of the
>>> resurrection of Christ, etc.
>>
TILL
>> There is another list that was set up on infidels.org especially to debate
>> the first of your claims, but the other two are definitely very
appropriate for the >> goals of the errancy list. I propose, then, that you
agree to
>> affirm either of the following propositions:
>>
>> RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claims of prophecy
>> fulfillment in the person and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.
>>
>> RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claim that Jesus of
>> Nazareth died and was later resurrected to life.
>>
>> Tell me which one of these you wish to affirm, and we can get started on
>> the debate. Format and rules should be negotiated, of course, but we can
>> attend to this matter after we have agreed on which proposition to debate.
>>
>SHERMAN
>Not what I asked you...besides, since some erroneously think upon the
>resurrection is the faith! this will bring out the tired old arguments you
>dread so much.
TILL
I'm a bit confused, Sherman. You said that you would be "pleased to do so
now," i.e., present extrabiblical corroboration of miraculous claims in the
Bible and went on to say that "(e)vidence remains of the resurrection of
Christ," but when I proposed to you a very specific proposition about
evidence that corroborates the NT resurrection claim, you said, "Not what I
asked you." The rest of your statement was incomprehensible, so you will
have to explain to me what you meant by "since some erroneously think upon
the resurrection is the faith." The statement doesn't make sense. Also,
you will have to explain what you meant about this "bring[ing] out the tired
old arguments you dread so much."
At any rate, you first said that you were ready to present evidence of
extrabiblical corroboration of Bible miracles and even specified the
resurrection as a miracle for which such evidence exists, but then you
refused to accept a precisely worded proposition that I proposed on this
subject. Needless to say, I'm confused, so you'll have to explain yourself.
SHERMAN
>> My counter is:
>
>RESOLVED
>Extrabiblical evidence supports miracles and miraculous claims of the Bible.
>[Therefore Atheism is not a reasonable or viable option for mankind but a
>denial of God's divine power and eternal nature.]
>
TILL
You actually are proposing two propositions, and a debate should focus on a
single precisely worded proposition. Both of your propositions are vaguely
worded, so I must insist that you present a proposition that is specific.
On my errancy list, a debate is supposed to begin soon with an inerrantist
who will affirm that the prophecy against Egypt in Ezekiel 29-32 was
fulfilled in all of its details. A proposition like this is precisely
worded, as formal debate propositions should be, and its preciseness will
keep the discussion away from tangents that may involve prophecy in general
but not Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt specifically. For example, this
proposition will prevent the debate from digressing to issues like whether
the so-called virgin-birth prophecy was fulfilled or whether Zechariah had
indeed prophesied that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey or
whether the OT had prophesied that Jesus would be given vinegar on the
cross, etc., etc., etc. Preciseness should therefore be a requirement that
you would also want in order to prevent the debate from scattering in all
directions like a shotgun blast. If you think that this is just an idea
that I am trying to impose on you, I recommend that you read some reference
books on formal debating. I think you will see that what I am demanding
here is a recognized standard in formal debating.
You should therefore choose which specific miracle claim you want to defend
with extrabiblical corroboration. I suggest again the resurrection issue.
It is a very logical one to focus on, since the resurrection is obviously
the centerpiece of Christianity, and I can even quote the apostle Paul in
support of my view. However, if you don't want to defend the resurrection,
I suggest issues like the following.
RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claim that Jesus of
Nazareth was born to a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a male.
RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claim that Jesus of
Nazareth resurrected Lazarus (or Jairus's daughter) from the dead.
RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claim that Jesus
changed water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.
RESOLVED: Extrabiblical evidence corroborates the NT claim that many saints
were resurrected from the dead after the death of Jesus and then appeared to
many people in the city of Jerusalem.
This should be sufficient to give you some inspiration for your own issue to
focus on if none of the above suit your fancy. If you really do believe
that extrabiblical corroboration of biblical miracles exists, then you
surely have in mind at least one miracle that your proposition could focus on.
A formal debate should also have a format and rules that have been agreed
upon by both parties before the discussions begin. This will help to avoid
disputes after the debate is underway. I am proposing the following set of
rules that have been adapted from the agreement that I reached on debating
format with the inerrantist who intends to defend Ezekiel's prophecy against
Egypt. I have added a couple of items to it that I consider necessary after
having made several exchanges with you on a debate that got out of focus and
into distracting tangents, and I am also including a couple of items that
should take care of concerns that you have about my debating style. You, of
course, should feel free to comment on these and to offer your own proposals
if I have overlooked something that you consider necessary.
*****************
1. Matthew Sherman will agree to affirm that extrabiblical evidence
corroborates (whatever specific biblical miracle is eventually agreed upon).
2. As the affirmant, Sherman will define the key terms of his proposition
in his first posting so that the issue in dispute will be understood by all
who read the list postings, but the definition of the word "extrabiblical"
will be understood to mean unbiased, disinterested evidence from
contemporary sources.
3. Each disputant agrees to respond to his opponent's arguments or
counterarguments with logically delineated responses that will attempt to
refrain from recognized logical fallacies.
4. Each disputant agrees not to evade his opponent's arguments. If an
opponent points out an argument or rebuttal that has been overlooked, the
other party agrees to reply to it immediately or else admit that he has no
reply to offer.
5. If a disputant thinks that his opponent has committed a logical fallacy,
he will point out exactly where the fallacy occurred and the reasons why it
should be considered a fallacy. Both parties agree that this rule will
prohibit the mere assertion that a fallacy has occurred.
6. Both disputants recognize the burden-of-proof principle that requires
the one who makes a claim to provide reasonable evidence that the claim is
true. Both agree to refrain from demands that the opposition prove that a
claim is not true.
7. Neither party will be obligated to rebut a claim that is not supported
by evidence.
8. Both disputants agree that information used in the debate should be
evaluated on the basis of merit and valid rules of evidence and that
privileged status will not be accorded to any information solely on the
basis of its source.
9. The debate will be between Matthew Sherman and Farrell Till, but other
members of the Errancy list will be entitled to post their reactions and
comments. Sherman and Till, however, will have no obligation to respond
directly to any of these postings, although they will have the right to do
so if they wish.
10. To minimize reader confusion resulting from careless writing errors and
sentence structure, each party agrees to proofread and edit all postings
before they are sent to the Errancy list.
11. Both parties agree to refrain from ad hominem and insulting comments.
12. So that postings will not become unreasonably long, each participant
agrees to limit the length to 15K. If a posting cannot be answered in 15K,
the respondent may divide it into parts.
13. Both parties agree not to resort to "stacking," a debating tactic that
aims several unsupported claims or assertions at an opponent in order to
overwhelm him with more material than he can possibly answer in just one
debate. To prevent stacking, the affirmant (Sherman) agrees to present just
one argument at a time, and the negative (Till) agrees not to divert the
discussion to any other issue until each argument has been properly
rebutted. Only after an argument has been properly delineated and properly
rebutted will a second or third or fourth, etc. argument be introduced.
14. Matt Sherman agrees to join the Errancy list in order to facilitate the
posting of arguments and rebuttals so that his opponent will not be burdened
with the responsibility of seeing that his postings are forwarded to the list.
******************************
I believe that this format proposal is reasonable and will result in a
useful debate if both of us accept these rules and abide by them. At any
rate, you have said that you want to present evidence of extrabiblical
corroboration of biblical miracles, so this will be your opportunity. I
will wait for your response.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net