The way I recall it that each participant had agreed to an allotted time to make his case, with the other following up for the same specified time. Initially White presented his positive Case for a couple of day’s Gregg really never got around to his. Their appeared to be confusion over who ended yesterday and therefore who was to start today, when it finally got off the ground Gregg stopped and asked White mid-way through this opening segment a question and then cut the man off in mid-sentence when he didn’t like what he was hearing, at least it appeared that way to me. This seemed flat out rude to me. I’m amazed your amazed one would object to “editorializing” his position when ground rules for set exchange had not been agreed to in advance. What assurance would the respondent have of clarifying his position, correct the record or pointing out the logical fallacies incorporated in said editorial? As it was Gregg was talking over White. I find it interesting that Greg at this late hour has changed his tactic. He has yet to present a positive case for why one should buy his view, (surely his 6 verse expose covered in one 12 minute segment is not his positive case) and now instead of addressing Whites questions goes on the attack in the manner he chose to use today? No doubt we all allow our bias at times to shade our views, and evaluations of what transpires, but cutting another off is really not a matter of debate, no pun intended.darin-houston wrote:My understanding was that they agreed to let each other use their time allotments to do what they wanted with them -- put their positive case forward, answer questions, or have a q/a exchange -- I didn't hear anything specifically permitting yes/no questions, but that's pretty standard debate fare in my opinion -- if you think you got a raw deal or need time to explain, you take notes and use your own time to respond or elaborate. I can't imagine a debate question where one would have the time to clarify and respond perfectly to avoid the loaded questions unless you own the floor. My initial opinion was that Dr. White was merely doing what he does well -- using debate tactics and rhetoric to burn time and to try as hard as he could to avoid that difficult situation during Steve's round. However, when he responded with the shock and amazement and criticism afterwards, I would have to think now that he truly was taken aback and maybe wasn't using a tactic.Was the format agreed to by both parties in advance? Did they then upon agreement adjust the time period to 12 minute intervals in advance? Was there ever any ground rules for the exchange of yes/no type questions?
I do think his criticism that Steve was using inappropriate "tag lines" after his questions was ridiculous. After q/a, it's not uncommon to characterize and comment on what you think are the consequences attributable to the answer. That's what your rebuttal time is usually for (or own free time).
I think the biggest problem here was not having official rules and specific topics for each day. After the live debate was cancelled and communication wasn't all that great, it just sort of "happened," and even Dr. White before the debate mentioned he had done no preparation and was going to "wing it."
I noticed Dr. White commented on this forum's "behavior" in his post-debate closing comments (and if I remember correctly, during the debate).
I find it amazing that such a truly brilliant man can see our forum exchanges in such a way. I just don't understand how some people can see black as white. It makes me wonder if I am susceptible to the same error at times.
PaulT