A Debate Proposal for Matt Sherman
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 16:45:01 -0800 (00920529901, 2.2.32.19990304004501.0087c7cc@midwest.net)
TILL
Here is Sherman's reply to my debate proposal. I will reply to it later
tonight.
*******************
> 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
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
Sounds good. I intend to avoid needless disputes and conduct myself like a
gentleman and know you do as well, even "over and above" given ground rules.
> 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.
> *****************
>
SHERMAN
My counter proposal--I am committed to not being overly difficult. I only
wish to define terms carefully for both our sakes and have tried to agree to
most of your points. I hope the next reply will be an affirmation of the
changes I have made and we can get started nicely.
> 1. Matthew Sherman will agree to affirm that extrabiblical evidence
> corroborates (whatever specific biblical miracle is eventually agreed
> upon).
>
SHERMAN
1. Yes...though I thought you were prepared to accept my choice of
Bible miracle events rather than one "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.
>
SHERMAN
2. Does this not define "Extrabiblical" out of existence? The
possibility of "unbiased, disinterested evidence" existing for anything in
the universe is a hot debate in its own right...but I can see the crux of
your argument certainly, and plan to stick to hard evidence.
"Contemporary sources" is also out unless we may grant both
definitions to the word "contemporary" to mean both "now" and
"then"...therefore, "contemporary evidence" available today implies "we have
it now to corroborate what happened (a miracle) back then."
I would thus change #2 to read "As the affirmant, Sherman will
define the key terms of his proposition in his first posting concisely so
that the issue in dispute will be understood by all who read the list
postings [which unerdstanding is assumptive but that's fine with me]. The
definition of the word "extrabiblical" will be understood to mean outside
the Bible text itself. Sherman may refer to the Bible text for a point of
reference(s) to confer with, but will stick to extrabiblical sources to
provide proof for his claim(s).
Again, we are on the right track here and I am delighted to help
provide extrabiblical corroboration demonstrating Bible validity for a
miracle event. I recognize it is a privilege, not a right, to have an
opportunity to share on the errancy list and I will express myself
accordingly.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
3. Sounds good. I accept #3.
> 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.
>
4. Define "immediately". Surely you don't mean we are both going to type
"there and then" and not research repsonses using outside reference
materials? Regarding the second part, I will make every effort to be
conciliatory and admit when you have me in a corner, though. I expect that
you will do that during the course of the debate also and that this will be
a learning experience and enjoyable for us both. I accept Rule #4.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
5. I expect that if I make a circular argument you take us through its
fallacy of logic and so forth, of course. Sounds good. I accept #5.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
6. Burden of proof is not necessary for all forms of debate. A debate such
as this one requires not a "burden of proof" but rather a "preponderance of
the available evidence". We are not "convicting" anyone here via "burden of
proof" but presenting evidence for our two sides, and any miracle chosen
(including claimed miracles in the world apart from the text of the Bible)
will have always contesting sides who assert or disagree with the event,
regardless of the facts at hand. Take Rule #6 out, please. Thank you. Or you
may amend it to keep the last part only--"Both agree to refrain from demands
that the opposition prove that a claim is not true". Am I mistaken here?
I pledge not to say "this is so, now go spend hours telling me it isn't so."
I pledge to provide evidence toward proof and not bluster regarding "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.
>
SHERMAN
7. I have to both limit the length of my messages and support with my
extended evidence at once or you can say "no evidence" rather than rebut or
reply? Remove Rule #7 please, or amend it to say, "neither party is
obligated to rebut a claim." That would make for a strange rule, though,
since you are insistent that I have wiggled away in times past from
responding to your points and could thus do so if you do not supply evidence
in your comments!
Seriously, I do not mean to incur your ire. Look at what you are
saying, "Neither party will be obligated to rebut a claim that is not
supported
> by evidence..." If I post an item with evidence that you feel is no
> evidence at all, than as you tell me why you refuse to reply to my
> spurious evidence and on what grounds my evidence is not evidence, you are
> replying and rebuting! Isn't Rule #7 circular reasoning? Please feel free
> to correct me here.
>
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
8. Rule #8 is not for the disputants but makes an admonishment to
those judging the debate. No "status" can be accorded to any information
except in the case of those reading the debate or else the debaters are
making an ad verecundiam argument, which in two other Rules we try to both
refrain from doing so and point out such claims in our rebuts. I come to the
debate with a bias and so do you...? I will read your statements with an
open and inquiring mind and will not accord you either special or diminshed
status in your remarks and trust that you will do the same regarding my
opinions. Further, I will refrain from "labeling" your sources as
liberal/critical and so forth where possible. I will agree to #8, though,
with that caveat of philosophical insight on the record. I accept #8 despite
the fact that no effort has been made to define "merit" or "valid rules of
evidence" according to any given standard, and I will thank you to address
my evidence as such and play debater, not judge and jury.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
9. No. I could possibly see where errancy list readers are entitled to post
to the debate itself, but neither Till nor Sherman should respond to any
such posting. It is further recommended that errancy readers refrain from
doing so in the first place, for as they introduce a new line of reasoning
for or against the resolution, they nullify the opportunity for the debaters
to claim a similar argument as an original one. Frankly, I announce my
intentions in advance never to respond to any other post than Till's, since
I have no intention of debating 20 or more persons to my one. Till, you will
perhaps instead allow each portion of our debate to go on for a week's time,
and then cut the thread, start a new one, and post the original thread to
the list for all to chew on post facto. You have said numerous times that I
am easy prey, and I do not mind your saying so, but please demonstrate your
capabilities to me and the list without aid...and I in my turn can hopefully
avoid the inconvenience or arguing with a Christian brother about the
"necessity of water baptism" and so on. You are inviting extremely lengthy
threads and postings here with this rule.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
Sounds good. I take this debate seriously and will endevaor to be clear and
concise. I accept #10.
> 11. Both parties agree to refrain from ad hominem and insulting comments.
>
SHERMAN
Yes. The facts will speak and the speakers will be gentlemen. I accept #11.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
What is that for a word or sentence count, please? I cannot measure file
size with my mail client...but I pledge in advance to look at the size of
your comments and build mine accordingly, if that will help. I accept #12
with your clarification.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
My sentiments precisely, with two additions...1) Till will present one rebut
at a time to any particular argument to be promptly addressed by Sherman,
and not "stack" his rebut with several lines of inquiry and 2) Ny mutual
consent, both parties will "leave a line of reasoning" if they feel the
argument has been exhausted, regardless of "proper rebut". I have never
witnessed a debate where the affirmant said, "Ah, yes! You got me
there...points for you...now let's take up the issue of..." I do agree with
you though, that we both would like to see questions answered rather than
avoided.
> 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.
>
SHERMAN
No. I have already received many, many errancy list member postings against
my express wishes and without my given consent and cannot be burdened with
more. Is it that great a stretch for you to post my responses once or twice
each day for the privilege of turning me to Xian mincemeat?
[Till's additions]
1. Each party agrees to snip from his postings material that has already
been discussed if it does not relate to the particular issues being
discussed in the latest postings. If the opponent thinks that the snipping
has in any way altered the force of his argument or rebuttal, he may
resubmit the posting with the snipped material reinserted along with his own
relevant comments.
SHERMAN
Only if "his postings material" means literally "his own". I cannot give you
carte blanche to trim replies with the heading "SHERMAN". I will, however,
be pleased to clear off points you successfully refute or reply to and
points I feel I have won for the sake of sizing down posts to the list.
Remember, I am the one who is brief in my posts and had to lengthen them to
help you clarify your understanding.
2. Each party agrees to remain in the debate until it has run its course.
If either party drops out of the debate without answering arguments or
rebuttals that have been posted, this will be considered a violation of this
provision of the rules and format.
SHERMAN
Define "run its course"...how about three or four weeks' duration for the
first resolution?
Thank you!
> ******************************
>
> 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
>
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net