Merged Actually Effective Written Debate/Effective Public Debate

Jabba

Philosopher
Jabba
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
5,613
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…



- Thanks.

--- Jabba
 
An effective debate requires that all debaters have an argument and clearly state all evidence they have either for or against it.

If one debater has no evidence, they have lost, because their argument is not valid.
 
Likewise controlling the method of debate is a technique used by woosters to control the debate.
 
Debate around here when it comes to fringe ideas amounts to sceptics trying to extract good evidence and honest argument. If that is ever produced then minds will change.
 
Jabba said:
3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately in the Shroud thread you aren't presenting any evidence for your side. The anti-authenticity side, meanwhile, has both presented evidence and repeatedly requested that you do the same. So the person preventing effective debate is you.

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
Click to expand...
Don't assume that because you do something others do as well. Some people actively seek out opposing viewpoints and seriously study them.

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
Click to expand...
And this forum does that. Nobody is forbidden from posting on account of others thinking they're foolish.

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
Click to expand...
That's only valid when your side has an expert. Not all sides are equal in every debate.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Does this mean you'll start actually giving meaningful responses when people ask you questions, instead of always telling them that you'll have a response at a later date?
 
Jabba said:
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
Click to expand...

This is bordering on the fair and balanced fallacy. There is sometimes only one side. Would you hear both side of the evidence , between somebody which wanted to debate that Hitler never existed and WW2 was a jewish conpiracy by rothshield, and the other side which says historien pretending WW2 happened and Hitler was a deranged genocidial dictator ?

In fact no. The same as a two persons wanting to hold two theory : flat earth and round earth. You would not even bother with the falt earther for many many obvious scientific reason.

The reason for that is simple : there is an humongus amount of *prexisting* evidence , scientific and historical one, which has to be addressed first by the person having the extraordinary claim.

In our shourd case, the evidence which are extraordinary solid is 1) the theory on isotopic half live 2) the 14C isotopic knowledge we have 3) the isotopic results of the shroud 4) the fact that there has never ever been an invisible patch and the shroud was examinated by specialist. There is incontrovertible evidence, and YOU have no evidence agaisnt them. You have rethoric play, mudslinging, attack and attempt to insinue people were liar.

Furthermore in a debate to have two side, the two side must at elast debate on the same level of knowledge. It has been incresingly evidence you have no *********** clue on 14C dating at the starts. In the eman time it has been increasingly evidence you jsut reshash what other shroudies told you , you have had no knowledge of the facts. most if not all facts were NOT brought by you in the thread.


FInally to have a debate you would have the willingness to recongize and accept when a valid piece of evidence has been brought forward and whether a piece of rethoric that has been presented to you ahs been refuted / debunked. You have definitively not shown you are able to do that. Time and time again you have been shown that you are factually wrong (like the wholle bloody blood presence on the shroud : it is IRRRELAVANT as the blood if present could not be dated ! OR even you not recognizing that people were flaggelled willingly or not the whole 2000 last years!).

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…
Click to expand...

There is no side. There is science with a results, and you refusing that result due to belief.

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
Click to expand...

There is no side. There is science with a results, and you refusing that result due to belief.
This has been so PAINFULLY obvious to anybody with modcimum of neutrality visiting the thread.

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
Click to expand...

you are not listening. Ever.

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
Click to expand...

Says the one which never listen to many of the objection which were told him 100 times. Like the bloody bloody bloody blood objection.

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.
Click to expand...

Newspaper want to sell. Newspaper often intentionally make up a second side to have a controversy. Because controversy and trolling SELLS. Thus we have a lot of apparent controversy on evolution ? NOT on the science side,in absence of new evidence. But in newspaper : yes. We have a lot of controversy on global warming ? Not really on the science side, in absence of new evidence. But reading newspaper or watching fox news you would think so. We have controversy on the shroud ? Not really. it is settled for science in absence of new evidence. Shroud is 14th century. And you have shown no factual evidence whatsoever.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
Click to expand...

You have not shown a willingness to UNDERSTAND our objection. For example how many time 10's of us told you presence of blood is not evidenced, but even if it was it is irrelevant since you cannot date the blood !

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
Click to expand...

There is no debate in absence of new evidence. Tehre is only a unwillignness for you to accept the scientific incontrovertible evidence. There is an unwillignness to bloody udnerstand that presence of blood (not even evidenced) would be irrelevant in absentia of a dating of the blood.

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…
Click to expand...

It is indeed inneffective toa rgue a believer with a blind faith , by presenting him scientific actual dating evidence. Youa re like a creationist refusing to believe the earth is not 6000 years old.

[/B][/I]
- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Sure. Whatever.
 
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
 
Oh goody. Someone who can't find a single reference after 20 years of research is going to teach scientists how to debate.

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
Click to expand...
False Equivalency Fallacy. Some sides simply have nothing to say.

Second, if you want us to hear your side, you need to tell us your side. You rather forgot to do that in the shroud thread. In over a year, you presented practically no reference and what references you did present were completely debunked.

This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity. This is demonstrated by the rest of your post.

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…
Click to expand...
This is a failing on your part. You forgot to present your side.

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
Click to expand...
Gotta love thinly-veiled insults.

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
Click to expand...
You mean like accusing the other side of fraud multiple times? Oh, wait, that doesn't count because it's YOUR side doing it!

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…
Click to expand...
You've completely dismissed every expert that opposes your side, and accept "experts" who have no expertise in relevant fields and who cannot provide evidence that what they were working with came from the artifact in question.

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.
Click to expand...
So your idea of an effective debate is to limit the evidence to that of the side with the least evidence. Because THAT'S objective! :rolleyes:

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to make us look bad for pointing out the fact that our side has all kinds of evidence supporting it, while your side has nothing but wishful thinking and your unsubstantiated opinions and slanderous accusations. You are attempting to make it wrong to point out that you've been steamrolled in terms of weight of evidence. In other words, your idea of effective debate is that which allows you to pretend reality is what you want it to be.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
Click to expand...
When, exactly, do you plan to start? Every one of your points in the shroud thread has been responded to, multiple times and in great detail. You've yet to respond to any of the criticisms in any coherent way.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
Click to expand...
No. What we need here is a rational examination of the evidence. Your idea of debate is to have two sides who have already chosen their conclusions going back and forth. That's not effective in the slightest. What ACTUAL effective debate looks like is best demonstrated by the scientific method--you know, that thing that figured out the principles by which the computer you're posting with runs?

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…
Click to expand...
Certainly not when one party has already chosen their conclusion and attempts to dictate how the debate should occur, and even less frequently when part of their rules include "You can't present any more evidence than me".

You are dealing with educated people. We are not going to limit ourselves to your level of ignorance. It is completely irrational to demand that we do so. The solution to the fact that the shroud debate isn't going anywhere isn't for us to pretend that facts don't exist merely because you want us to; it's for you to educate yourself to the point where you can understand our evidence. This is particularly true since you've started openly accusing the scientists involved of fraud--you get NO benefit of the doubt at this point, and the fact that any of us are still treating you with even the slightest bit of courtesy and civility is a testament to our willingness to debate. You don't deserve either.
 
And we still haven't gotten to the question of what to do when one side is completely comfortable with flat out lying.

Actually, that is a very good question. As a viewer/reader watching a debate how do you keep an open mind if one side is caught in an outright lie? After all, just because one representative is a lair does not necessarily mean that their position is untrue. For example, some people have grossly overstated the impact of humans on global warming. That does not mean that global warming is untrue or that it is not impacted by human activity.

So, does anyone have advice on how to keep a skeptical mind open?
 
Dinwar said:
[...]

You are dealing with educated people. We are not going to limit ourselves to your level of ignorance. It is completely irrational to demand that we do so. The solution to the fact that the shroud debate isn't going anywhere isn't for us to pretend that facts don't exist merely because you want us to; it's for you to educate yourself to the point where you can understand our evidence. This is particularly true since you've started openly accusing the scientists involved of fraud--you get NO benefit of the doubt at this point, and the fact that any of us are still treating you with even the slightest bit of courtesy and civility is a testament to our willingness to debate. You don't deserve either.
Click to expand...


This bears repeating.
 
Jabba said:
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?
<snip for space>
- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ This.

I call shenanigans on the debate tactic for the reason given above: it's an arguing competition.

Both my sons were on state competition debating teams, and they would quite happily make stuff up that, on the face of it, sounded convincing during the debate, but had no factual basis. And they'd win the debate.

The Gish Gallop is an example of a debating technique, but has no place in establishing the veracity of a theory, or weighing the value of evidence.
 
That's why I've emphasized that the shroud discussion is a scientific debate. Science refers to what it does as debate, but has its own rules.
 
Dinwar said:
That's why I've emphasized that the shroud discussion is a scientific debate. Science refers to what it does as debate, but has its own rules.
Click to expand...

Yes. That element has been conspicuously absent from Jabba's critieria (recall the plea for a courtroom-style approach early on).
 
Kid Eager said:
^^^^^^ This.

I call shenanigans on the debate tactic for the reason given above: it's an arguing competition.

Both my sons were on state competition debating teams, and they would quite happily make stuff up that, on the face of it, sounded convincing during the debate, but had no factual basis. And they'd win the debate.

The Gish Gallop is an example of a debating technique, but has no place in establishing the veracity of a theory, or weighing the value of evidence.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is why scientists have refused to debate creationists and shroudies in the past - it's a waste of time. The shroudies have nothing to lose, and science has nothing to gain.
 
John Jones said:
I suppose this is why scientists have refused to debate creationists and shroudies in the past - it's a waste of time. The shroudies have nothing to lose, and science has nothing to gain.
Click to expand...

Well, it's more that scientists aren't trained in formal debate. I've not met one that was on a debate team. We're trained to evaluate evidence, which, as has been pointed out, is something entirely different. Formal debates aren't part of science; science works by the presentation of evidence and arguments spanning years if not decades. So scientists don't debate Creationists or shroudies for the same reason we don't box heavyweight champions: it's not what we do period.
 
Dinwar said:
This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity.
Click to expand...
I've repeated this part as well. I think it is an excellent perspective.
 
Jabba said:
-
3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...


To say that one should hear "both sides" of a question assumes that there are two, and only two, sides to each question. This is a very narrow minded view.
 
Pope130 said:
To say that one should hear "both sides" of a question assumes that there are two, and only two, sides to each question. This is a very narrow minded view.
Click to expand...

it also assumes that there is even another "side" on the same field...
 
Slowvehicle said:
Oh, Rich:

Seriously. In my humble opinion, this is not a "debate", nor can it be.

"Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants.

A "debate" has "judges" who determine the "winner"--and not one of the determinates of who "won" the "debate" has to do with the truth or falsity of the position assumed by, or forwarded by, the "winner". The very first thing a "debater" must do is to prepare for, and address the necessity of, arguing a principle, or an issue, with which she, personally, does not agree--because her agreement with, or emotional support of, the issue, is the least important characteristic of that issue. (As someone once said, "Truth is only one of your weapons in a debate--and by no means the most important one.")

You are engaging in an "argument"--a discussion wherein the truth of the issue is important to you. You want a piece of medieval linen to be the True ShroudTM, to the extent that no degree of evidence, no counter-example, no witness of experts, nor even any application of logic, is as important to you as your conviction that it is incompetence, or dishonesty, or vast collusion, that keeps anyone who accepts the evidence that the 3:1 medieval linen was correctly and competently dated from simply admitting that it "really is" the True ShroudTM.

Your position is not amenable to logic; not amenable to evidence, not amenable to reason--it is a deeply-held heart's desire to which you have demonstrated you will cling, and return, no matter what is said, shown, demonstrated, or logically presented.

Rules of debate are great for rhetorical contests--but a "debate" is no more a tool for discovering the truth of a proposition than a foil is a tool for discovering who would survive a swordfight.

Others on this thread have already commented on the "hear both sides" silliness, so I shall not...http://controversy.wearscience.com/

ETA: IMO, this ought to be put back in R&P...or even just merged with the "Shroud" thread.
Click to expand...


This is a good point. There is, however, a more fundamental type of debate, which is what the school-competition debate is supposed to reflect: debate is used to influence decisions about a future course of action. To put it more simply, debate is a political tool used as part of a political process. Debate often centers on a motion or proposition; that is, a statement about a course of action that is within a governing body's power, that may or may not be put into effect.

All the "debate" in the world about whether humans evolved or were created in a day would not influence whether or not humans actually evolved or were created in a day. One way or the other, that's an inalterable historical fact. We might, however, debate about whether Intelligent Design theory should be taught in public schools, because what we do in our public schools in the future is something we get to decide. In the course of that debate, we might end up arguing about whether evolution is valid, because that argument contributes to the debate. But calling the whole process "a debate about evolution" is a somewhat inaccurate (sometimes lazy, sometimes useful) shorthand.

Likewise, we cannot really debate about whether or not the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery or a miraculous relic of God's incarnation in human form. Whatever it actually is is an inalterable historical fact.

In order to turn that argument into a debate, Jabba could come up with a proposition regarding a future course of action for which the Shroud's nature is a relevant factor. (This was my response to every Truther who suggested I participate in a debate, and no one ever came forward with a suitable proposition.) I doubt that will happen.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
The absolute best sort of debate is one where the participants know the rules well enough to break them properly.

Those that merely follow the rules put the audience to sleep.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
...This is one of those things that sounds good, but in fact is terrible advice. We don't need to hear both sides--we need to examine the evidence. The sides are irrelevant. As soon as you start thinking about a scientific debate in terms of sides you create an "Us vs. Them" mentality that destroys your objectivity. ...
Click to expand...

This.
Slowvehicle and Myriad said it better, though


Slowvehicle said:
..."Debate" (says the ex-coach of a southern state small-school competitive team) is a formal style of rhetorical competition, not intended to reach, or determine, the "truth" of an issue, but intended to determine, or adjudicate, the rule-defined rhetorical skills of the participants. ...
Click to expand...

Myriad said:
... There is, however, a more fundamental type of debate, which is what the school-competition debate is supposed to reflect: debate is used to influence decisions about a future course of action. To put it more simply, debate is a political tool used as part of a political process. Debate often centers on a motion or proposition; that is, a statement about a course of action that is within a governing body's power, that may or may not be put into effect.

All the "debate" in the world about whether humans evolved or were created in a day would not influence whether or not humans actually evolved or were created in a day. One way or the other, that's an inalterable historical fact. We might, however, debate about whether Intelligent Design theory should be taught in public schools, because what we do in our public schools in the future is something we get to decide. In the course of that debate, we might end up arguing about whether evolution is valid, because that argument contributes to the debate. But calling the whole process "a debate about evolution" is a somewhat inaccurate (sometimes lazy, sometimes useful) shorthand. ..
Click to expand...

I'd like to think the OP takes these points into account.
 
Aepervius said:
The same as a two persons wanting to hold two theory : flat earth and round earth. You would not even bother with the falt earther for many many obvious scientific reason.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily so. I'm not saying that s/he would but if a "flat earther" had a compelling argument in favour of the flat earth theory then it might be worth listening to if only to learn how to deal with such reasoning that could lead to a false conclusion.
 
Jabba said:
- I think that the following concept deserves a serious and friendly discussion on THIS website, but I don't think that any of the "general topics" here is appropriate. Any suggestions?

- Something taken from my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86.



3-4. Why & Why Not



3. Why Debate?

3.1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.

3.2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…

3.3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…

3.4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…

3.5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expert from our side respond…

3.6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.

3.7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.

3.8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.

3.9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens…



- Thanks.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Hence our innate tendency to grab the popcorn as soon as we witness a good debate about to start.
 
Bump for Jabba to remember that some eight months ago, he had a plan to discuss an idea he has about effective debate.

Some few thought this thread might have been designed with alterior clickety-click motives.

My favorite pharaoh (may he post forever) thought this endeavour would be a waste of time.

I was hoping for an explanation of what Jabba's method is because it's certainly not apparent to me.
 
Actually effective debate, eh? Actually effective debate.

I'd start by keeping the unnecessary verbiage down to a minimum, and dumping redundancies, such as "Actually", which contributes nothing to the phrase.

Debate doesn't look to be the OP's strong point. Proclaiming to the world, but then failing to respond to the responses, looks more like lecturing or preaching than debating. Actually.
 
Mulling this idea over, I came up with something truly revolutionary. I'd like to suggest it to Jabba, in the hope that he utilises in it in next thread (or, perhaps, in his current thread in SMMT).

Be warned, it's quite complicated and shouldn't be attempted lightly. It requires a little bit of preparation and a willingness to do some work.

Are you ready?

Jabba, are you reading this carefully?


Are you sure you can open your mind to this idea?

It's this.

Post evidence for your ideas.
Whoa, just typing that gave me chills. But I know that if you utilise this one important strategy, it will result in effective debate.
 
Jabba, I have not read the Shroud thread. So, I will simply ask, can by C14 dating of the shroud place it in the first three decades of the Common Era? Can you place it in Jerusalem? Pollen analysis might be a good option for that but not the only one. If the answer to these questions is no, then there is nothing to discuss. There is no other side to argue and no debate technique that will fix that.
 
Agatha said:
Mulling this idea over, I came up with something truly revolutionary. I'd like to suggest it to Jabba, in the hope that he utilises in it in next thread (or, perhaps, in his current thread in SMMT).

Be warned, it's quite complicated and shouldn't be attempted lightly. It requires a little bit of preparation and a willingness to do some work.

Are you ready?

Jabba, are you reading this carefully?


Are you sure you can open your mind to this idea?

It's this.

Post evidence for your ideas.
Whoa, just typing that gave me chills. But I know that if you utilise this one important strategy, it will result in effective debate.
Click to expand...

Radical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom