In re-listening to the White/Gregg debate...Continued

[dean198]

This whole debate kinda took over me for a few days there, and I ended up finishing them off at home (I usually do all my listening on the car with an MP3). I found some comments on a Reformed blog that seemed to think that Steve did badly. That wasn't the impression I got at all. Firstly, the biggest challenge is to keep a Christian spirit (and sadly I don't even see any evidence that White and those around him even have a concept of how Christians should conduct themselves in debate and otherwise). Secondly I thought that Steve was very sharp and to the point, and that he also refused to be intimidated by White, when he would make claims like 'that isn't relevant to this passage'. For someone who thinks that way, all one can do is say 'let the listeners' decide, but I really learned a lot from the way Steve dealt with John 6, and was appreciative of his insights. The Bible is a unified book, and I really liked how Steve would just naturally bring in other passages that threw light on the verses under consideration. Thirdly I thought that White was manipulative, and that Steve was right to call him up on it ('he likes to dominate'); I get the impression that he was using his time, not to clarify matters logically, but to restore and win over people's confidence in his presentation, to slowly build emotional support for his argument, and not to cogently interact. He was making things more complicated then he needed to, in order I think to win more leeway. He was rattling off verses that appear to agree with his view, but making it difficult to consider the presuppositions, which he was bringing into the discussion, one by one. That left Steve in continual catch-up mode, but under the circumstances I think he covered a lot of ground. White's isn't an honest approach in my opinion, and someone engaging in it doesn't have any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I was able to follow his Greek arguments (which left me wondering just how many credits he even earned at college), but a lot of it is so unnecessary. I would consider it patronizing to quote the Greek when in a debate with someone who didn't know it. And White didn't seem to understand that Steve was showing the possibility that there is another way of understanding the verse (held by no less than Alford). Yes, it got a little tense at the end of Day 4, but Steve's questions were very simple ('does this passage in itself state such and such, yes or no?'), and I think this really rustled White's feathers simply because it was backing him into a corner he knew he couldn't afford to be backed into. I think this impression was confirmed for me in his next presentation, which was largely a self-justification, in which he crossed into irrelevant territory such as his debates with Muslims. I did unfortunately feel that a few snipes by Steve afterwards were unwarranted, but I say that knowing that I would surely have scored much lower on the sanctification scale if I was in the situation. I really enjoyed the final day - it would have been great if the last two days were like that, but i'm sure there is a lesson learned there.

One of the blogs I came across today criticized Steve for qualifying his statements with 'i think', 'it seems to me' etc. I do that a lot too. It's just a way of acknowledging that we are human and can make mistakes - yet it was interpreted by one person linked with White's ministry as a sign of liberalism. There is a hardness there that I really don't like, yet this idea that we have to be dogmatic and be proved 'right' is so prevalent. Most of the time I honestly wished I could fast forward through White, because I just didn't like the way he came across, but had to keep it on to follow, and to give him a fair hearing.

[darinhouston]

White's isn't an honest approach in my opinion, and someone engaging in it doesn't have any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

It depends on your purpose for debate. White's approach is fair if all you're trying to do is "win points" such as a high school debate team. But it's a counterproductive approach if you're trying to highlight and resolve differences to find out where the real difference is between brothers who seem to have a broad disagreement but who want to make sure the disagreement is as narrow as possible so as to explore deeper that area of disagreement.

I sense that White is in the middle,and is so convinced of his argument that he wants to sway people to his side by avoiding giving a hearer the impression that the other guy has some lesser point worth considering. Even a logical fallacy that would lose him points in a competitive debate would be worth using in that situation if it were successful with his audience. (it also feeds his pride, I think, to die on an irrelevant hill if he thinks he can seem authoritative up there).

[dean198]

Yeah I guess you're right - this is how some people view debate, and if two people like that want to debate, good luck to them. I guess I just assumed that if you accept an invitation to debate, that you don't play tricks just to give off an appearance. But like I said, that's just my opinion, and I personally don't find people who just want to win something just to show that they are right, to be credible.

[darinhouston]

Yeah I guess you're right - this is how some people view debate, and if two people like that want to debate, good luck to them. I guess I just assumed that if you accept an invitation to debate, that you don't play tricks just to give off an appearance. But like I said, that's just my opinion, and I personally don't find people who just want to win something just to show that they are right, to be credible.

Agreed.