My impressions of the debate in progress

[Guest]

Why is it that people are surprised that in a debate one would want to control the interaction with the opponent and retain his time for his own purposes?

I am no expert on debate, but one of the most fundamental aspects of cross-examination is to use your opponent's expert (or the opponent himself) to prove your case. The goal is for the other view to better understand your own position, and cross-examination is one of those tools to do just that. It is also fundamental to carefully control the conversation. In a court of law, you are even expected to ask - yes - leading questions (which are by definition, yes/no questions). The rules of procedure otherwise consider such questions inappropriate. The very purpose of cross-examination is to allow such questions. It is up to the opponent to make his own case or to rebut the assumptions that come from those yes/no questions in his own time.

This is so fundamental that I hardly see the need to explain it, but it has been repeated a number of times.

You may find this essay interesting (from University of Vermont's Debate Center).

excerpt from http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LDMcCradynew.pdf...
Cross Examination: Where the Battle’s Lost and Won
By Rusty McCrady
***
As one judge put it, the examinee has the right to ignore the request for yes/no answers; another judge said that it is the examinee’s duty to “sneak in more information to support their case, just as the other side should try to stop them.” Most of the respondents went on to state that the key here is for the examinee to elaborate briefly beyond the “mandated” yes/no limit, and to do so courteously and with relevant information (i.e., NOT with the intent to filibuster and take
up the opponent’s valuable time for questioning). Thus the other extreme—students giving long-winded, vacuous responses just to rob the opponent of time—was seen, especially by the judges, as equally obnoxious as the dictatorial demand for yes/no responses.
***
Interestingly, both judges and debaters responded that they enjoy the tension created by the examiner’s push to get answers to all questions, versus the examinee’s desire to elaborate at length, and even to use up the examiner’s precious minutes by expounding at much greater length than is necessary. Virtually all experienced debaters and judges seemed to acknowledge that the pressure thus created is both inevitable and acceptable as simply one aspect of competition. In other words, skillful debaters know that the opponent will try to take over the cross ex. period through making his/her own points or even filibustering, and they also acknowledge that part of the job of the examiner is to prevent this from happening! All’s fair in love and debate.

Perhaps it is due to the nature in which the debate was staged and went off for the 1st couple of days. Let me ask you in the debate you posted above were ground rules established prior to engagement so that both parties involved knew what to expect, time limitations ect.? Methinks you are comparing apples and oranges. When 2 “Christian” brothers engage in discussion I would think it inappropriate for one to cut the other off especially given the setting and past flow of the discussion. The sense I got from the 1st couple of days was, “come let us reason together” but that took a 180 out of the blue when one elects to cut the other off. What is really interesting is that another poster here has taken the limited answer produced when White was cut-off as evidence he couldn’t address the question because then it would establish that White was using a double standard, if that don’t beat all. As I said, what I heard yesterday seemed to me to be flat out rude, if you don’t sense that I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

PaulT

[Guest]

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.

It was his time -- if you don't control your own time, you lose it -- Dr. White was merely repeating what he had said yesterday -- it seemed like a time grab to do that to me.

Surely you jest, at point 15.09 of this run of the debate, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/ Gregg comments that White's Greek doesn't make a difference to the text and then asks him if he wants to comment on his observation. Gregg's question opened up the discussion from the prior day because of his rendition coupled with the claim the Greek didn't matter, and then asked White to specifically comment on his view. Gregg opened the door and then when it was going to get difficult rudely shut it, If you don't want to hear the reply why ask the question?

PaulT

[Guest]

PaulT, do you read the bible in greek or in english?

[Guest]

Surely you jest, at point 15.09 of this run of the debate, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/ Gregg comments that White's Greek doesn't make a difference to the text and then asks him if he wants to comment on his observation. Gregg's question opened up the discussion from the prior day because of his rendition coupled with the claim the Greek didn't matter, and then asked White to specifically comment on his view. Gregg opened the door and then when it was going to get difficult rudely shut it, If you don't want to hear the reply why ask the question?

I don't remember the exact details all that well, but I recall the question he was being asked was a pretty simple one that didn't require reference to anything beyond the question at hand, but then I'm a simple man.

I got to hear a bit of today's (and will listening later this evening I hope), and if it was all in the vein of the part I heard, I could have used 5 days of it (at least following an affirmative position statement). It is very clarifying when people can stay on discrete topics and respond to the inquiries without fillibuster or elaborate exposition.

[Guest]

Surely you jest, at point 15.09 of this run of the debate, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/ Gregg comments that White's Greek doesn't make a difference to the text and then asks him if he wants to comment on his observation. Gregg's question opened up the discussion from the prior day because of his rendition coupled with the claim the Greek didn't matter, and then asked White to specifically comment on his view. Gregg opened the door and then when it was going to get difficult rudely shut it, If you don't want to hear the reply why ask the question?

I don't remember the exact details all that well, but I recall the question he was being asked was a pretty simple one that didn't require reference to anything beyond the question at hand, but then I'm a simple man.

I got to hear a bit of today's (and will listening later this evening I hope), and if it was all in the vein of the part I heard, I could have used 5 days of it (at least following an affirmative position statement). It is very clarifying when people can stay on discrete topics and respond to the inquiries without fillibuster or elaborate exposition.

I'm not sure it matters at this point, but what you raise is exactly my point. If you go back to the run point in the AOMIN transmission of the debate, 15.09, I think, you will find what was asked wasn’t just 1 simple question but a couple of complex questions. Gregg disputed whether Whites view of the Greek mattered in lieu of the way Gregg was viewing the passage, White was asked to comment on what his view of that, (that being Gregg’s comments) were, which would seem to me to be asking for additional detail about why the Greek is important specifically to Act 13:48, which would lead to a reiteration and expansion of what was covered the prior day.

PaulT

[Guest]

PaulT, do you read the bible in greek or in english?

Why do you ask?

PaulT

[Guest]

I'm not sure it matters at this point, but what you raise is exactly my point.

I will agree with you on this much -- after listening to the rest of the day's audio today, it would have been good to have had more concrete rules and a format for the whole debate. Again, 5 days of this would have been very interesting.

It's unfortunate, since it was sort of a middle ground between the formal contemplated in-person debate and the guest-host type of conversation that also would have been interesting. That middle ground where it is flexible within your own time allotment just didn't work out well, as it led to too much "ambiguity" (sorry, couldn't resist) as to the expectations.

[Guest]

I'm not sure it matters at this point, but what you raise is exactly my point.

I will agree with you on this much -- after listening to the rest of the day's audio today, it would have been good to have had more concrete rules and a format for the whole debate. Again, 5 days of this would have been very interesting.

It's unfortunate, since it was sort of a middle ground between the formal contemplated in-person debate and the guest-host type of conversation that also would have been interesting. That middle ground where it is flexible within your own time allotment just didn't work out well, as it led to too much "ambiguity" (sorry, couldn't resist) as to the expectations.

That's good, humor is good,

PaulT

[Guest]

White refused to answer or did he withdraw when he was spoken over and not given the opportunity to answer? Are you suggesting that in Gregg’s 1st segment yesterday when after inviting White to comment, and then cut him off in mid-sentence is a reasonable standard to expect? 2 way conversation entails cutting one off? Limiting factors? Perhaps you are referring to the method Gregg sprung on White to derive the hoped for answer?

Did not Gregg admit chapters 1,2 & 3 are structured to provide a single argument? I’ve listened to Gregg’s commentary on Romans 3 and haven’t had the chance to ask the question, but from what I gather his view is that “there are none righteous no not one and that there is none that understands there is none that seeks after” is hyperbole, which may or may not come from his view of Ro 1 in isolation but the mere fact that he admits the 3 chapters are to be viewed as one argument building in climax would seem now to suggest perhaps I misunderstood when I listened to the tape. I’m not sure of your conclusion that Gregg’s commentary in later chapters is similar to how White draws the conclusion that Ro 1 is an indictment of all man, do you have a for instance. Frankly, unlike you I’m not sure I understand that White necessarily relies on chapter 3 to determine chapter 1 regards all mankind. White indicated chapter 3 played a part but was cut-off and not allowed to provide a complete answer therefore I wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions that Whites entire basis for Rom 1:18 is hinged on Rom 3. How can you be so sure of Whites reason for not answering, do you have a predisposed agenda? Nevertheless the 1st 3 chapters provide a singular argument which would seem to mitigate against your charge that White is using eisegesis in Ro 1 even if he were basing his entire position on that which is found in Ro 3, at least based on my understand of what eisegesis means. I don’t follow your concept of limiting factor, granted the 1st 3 chapters of Ro are focused on setting forth the basis that all men are under commendation, is this an example of the concept of limiting factor? How does this then apply to Ro 8 & 9 or for that matter 10 & 11? Are you suggesting White reads Ro 8, 9 10 & 11 in a vacuum? From what I gather White sees these chapters building upon one another with an explanation for why his fellow brethren don’t believe? The criticism I heard thus far by White of Gregg in bringing in outside material to buttress his view of a passage is fundamentally different than the 1st 3 chapters of Romans entails, because as I said even if the single basis for Whites position of Ro 1:18 were based on Ro 3, the fact the 3 chapters together build a single argument means he is not importing his view on the text but rather recognizing the Apostles argument for what it entails, how is this eisegesis? For example, I believe it was on day 2 regarding John 6 in answer to White Gregg used both John 17 and I think John 5. The problem as I see it and what if I recall correctly White pointed out is that the 2 chapters Gregg used to comment on John 6 are referring to different subjects than what John 6 is referring. John 17 is a prayer for all believers, John 5 is a condemnation for non believers, however John 6 is about how do men believe. Gregg provided the 2 texts which indicates believers believe and non believers don’t believe, I believe that all parties involved would agree for the most part what visibly separates believers from nonbelievers is belief however the point of John 6 is what if anything enables unbelievers to believe. Gregg begged this question and attempted to limit John 6 by this begged question, which would seem to me is an example of eisegesis.

Thank you for your thoughts,

PaulT

I think you missed my point. Oh, well. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Guest]

I've now listened to all of the last debate. It was excellent, though I have an observation that I want to mention (and I mean nothing ad hominem - it's just a general observation about Dr. White's approach and most others I've heard).

Apart from the erudite usage of greek and the focus on the grammar above all else, it strikes me that at the very core of the Calvinist argument is an appeal to philosophical presuppositions. This is very odd since that is the key criticism they make against the non-Calvinist position. I believe this was wrong at the core from Augustine onward. In many of Dr. White's arguments, he ended up saying something like "we know we can't believe X because that would mean we have to believe Y about God." Often these relate to our understanding of one of the "omni-s about God." While I don't deny most of them in any measure, our understanding of them must take second position to the text (again, ironic considering their profession of sola scriptura). At their core, our understanding of them are derivative positions based on philosophical understandings or logical derivation from a number of (yes - sometimes ambiguous or paradoxical) teachings.

I'm no Open Theist, and that is the common charge against non-Calvinists, but I place my philosophy also in subjection to Scripture, and I'm not sure they do.