My impressions of the debate in progress
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:44 pm
I thought I would mention my impressions of the debate after the second day.
On Day 1, I felt that James' position came across stronger than mine, for a number of reasons:
1. He used much more scripture than I used. However, the scriptures he used were never exegeted or seen in their contexts, so that the strength of his case was only apparent. I felt compelled to take a negative approach—namely, pointing out the irrelevance of his proof texts. However, this prevented me from giving a positive case.
2. He was prepared with a presentation, while I was expecting the program to be more conversational, and had not prepared any presentation. Thus my presentation was not concise or focused as was his.
3. I do not plan to appeal to the tastes of those who are impressed with Dr. White's style of argumentation. I am interested in getting across truths to people who like to analyze arguments and search for the true meaning of a biblical passage. Therefore, I will never simply rattle-off twelve verses without comment and pretend that this has somehow made my case. I have never debated a Calvinist who failed to take this very approach. Dr White is no exception. The gatling-gun approach does impress those who do not wish to give the matter much deep thought, who are content to go with verbal first impressions, and who are intimidated by scholarly credentials.
I do not play in that league—not because it was not open to me, but because I object to it in principle. To argue in this manner insults the intelligence of your opponent and your audience. It is as if you are saying, "I guess you didn't know all of these verses were there against your position, did you?" It does not acknowledge the likelihood that your opponent may be very aware of and comfortable with all of those texts, and that they should be examined more closely to see whether they support one view over the other.
4. On a personal note, I literally had not slept well Wednesday night (not because of anything related to the debate). I was very tired, and had "half my brain tied behind my back" (as I had previously joked about, but had not really intended to do!). I was not "at the top of my game" and my computer software connecting me to the studio crashed three times during the show, which means that much of the time, while speaking to Dr. White off the top of my head, I was trying to reboot a slow program (which requires entering two passwords at different stages).
Okay, enough excuses. Just thought I would explain things for those who may have been disappointed.
In my own view, the second day was entirely different from the first. I still did not have occasion to present my positive case, but I was more rested and focused. I believe Dr. White was caught by surprise by certain points, and it was obvious.
My strength is not in giving 12-minute summaries of the entirety of the Bible's teaching (brevity is not my gift). James is good at such succinct presentations. It is his strength, I believe.
Where I find him weakest, both in verbal and written debate, is when he is forced to respond to an unexpected challenge on some point for which he has no prepared answers. My impression is that he is scattered and sounds desperate in those circumstances. It is in just that kind of situation, however, that I feel most comfortable.
Such interaction will, I hope, characterize much of the remainder of the debate, though I must, at some point present my positive case. If I am not able to take the time to do that during the debate (because I am forced to interact more with specific challenges), I will give my positive case on a sixth broadcast following the fifth debate. If Dr. White wishes to respond to my positive case, he can phone in afterward and give his response.
On Day 1, I felt that James' position came across stronger than mine, for a number of reasons:
1. He used much more scripture than I used. However, the scriptures he used were never exegeted or seen in their contexts, so that the strength of his case was only apparent. I felt compelled to take a negative approach—namely, pointing out the irrelevance of his proof texts. However, this prevented me from giving a positive case.
2. He was prepared with a presentation, while I was expecting the program to be more conversational, and had not prepared any presentation. Thus my presentation was not concise or focused as was his.
3. I do not plan to appeal to the tastes of those who are impressed with Dr. White's style of argumentation. I am interested in getting across truths to people who like to analyze arguments and search for the true meaning of a biblical passage. Therefore, I will never simply rattle-off twelve verses without comment and pretend that this has somehow made my case. I have never debated a Calvinist who failed to take this very approach. Dr White is no exception. The gatling-gun approach does impress those who do not wish to give the matter much deep thought, who are content to go with verbal first impressions, and who are intimidated by scholarly credentials.
I do not play in that league—not because it was not open to me, but because I object to it in principle. To argue in this manner insults the intelligence of your opponent and your audience. It is as if you are saying, "I guess you didn't know all of these verses were there against your position, did you?" It does not acknowledge the likelihood that your opponent may be very aware of and comfortable with all of those texts, and that they should be examined more closely to see whether they support one view over the other.
4. On a personal note, I literally had not slept well Wednesday night (not because of anything related to the debate). I was very tired, and had "half my brain tied behind my back" (as I had previously joked about, but had not really intended to do!). I was not "at the top of my game" and my computer software connecting me to the studio crashed three times during the show, which means that much of the time, while speaking to Dr. White off the top of my head, I was trying to reboot a slow program (which requires entering two passwords at different stages).
Okay, enough excuses. Just thought I would explain things for those who may have been disappointed.
In my own view, the second day was entirely different from the first. I still did not have occasion to present my positive case, but I was more rested and focused. I believe Dr. White was caught by surprise by certain points, and it was obvious.
My strength is not in giving 12-minute summaries of the entirety of the Bible's teaching (brevity is not my gift). James is good at such succinct presentations. It is his strength, I believe.
Where I find him weakest, both in verbal and written debate, is when he is forced to respond to an unexpected challenge on some point for which he has no prepared answers. My impression is that he is scattered and sounds desperate in those circumstances. It is in just that kind of situation, however, that I feel most comfortable.
Such interaction will, I hope, characterize much of the remainder of the debate, though I must, at some point present my positive case. If I am not able to take the time to do that during the debate (because I am forced to interact more with specific challenges), I will give my positive case on a sixth broadcast following the fifth debate. If Dr. White wishes to respond to my positive case, he can phone in afterward and give his response.
