Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: McDonald v. Baty Fort Collins Debate: Status Report (revised)!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... Well, I can see a couple of good reasons for it. For one thing, a debate which consists of nothing more than one party falsely accusing the other party,
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 25, 2008
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
      <jerry@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Robert, here is the proposition that I will affirm,
      > like it or not. That is the way it is. If you think
      > that I am in violation of Hedges Rules of Controversy
      > then you have every right, during the debate, to bring
      > that point out. However, this will be my proposition.
      > I will not bend, I will not compromise and I will not
      > give in.
      >
      > Propositions for Debate
      > McDonald Vs. Baty
      >
      > 1. "Resolved: The evidence concludes that
      > Robert Baty is an atheist."
      >
      > Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
      > Deny:????
      >
      >
      > 2. "If God's word (the text) says everything began
      > over a period of six days, is interpreted by some
      > to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
      > thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
      > that some thing is actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong."
      >
      > Affirm: Robert Baty
      > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald
      >
      >
      > If you are not an atheist I don't see why you refuse
      > to deny a simple, plainly stated proposition that says
      > that you are.
      >
      > In Christ Jesus
      > Jerry D. McDonald


      Well, I can see a couple of good reasons for it.

      For one thing, a "debate" which consists of nothing
      more than one party falsely accusing the other party,
      and the other party spending all his time defending
      himself against the false charges, is hardly
      enlightening and would not be worth reading. It's
      too personal. Nobody outside of a small circle even
      know who "Robert Baty" is, and Jerry McDonald is not
      interested in attacking *ideas*, but the person itself.

      And the second thing is that it is *not* a "simple,
      plainly stated proposition", because Jerry McDonald
      refuses to tell us what an "atheist" is, according
      to his "terminology".

      Robert Baty might as well try to deny he is a
      "qwertyuiop". We don't know, until Jerry McDonald
      [*precisely*] defines the term for us, what Robert is
      even supposed to be denying.

      In the first point above, it could be imagined that the
      "debate" could be made a little more interesting if
      Robert, in his negatives, simply showed that whatever
      "evidence of atheism" Jerry McDonald is trying to apply
      to him, is equally applicable to Jerry McDonald's wife
      and son, and make sure this "debate" gets well-circulated
      in the area around Belle, Missouri. That would tend to
      depersonalize it a little, and show that Jerry McDonald
      was indeed selectively attacking a person and not an idea.

      I mean, what is to be gained? Who, a number of years
      from now, would read the debate and draw any edification
      from it? Suppose the proposition was re-written so that it
      said, "Resolved: The evidence shows that Todd Greene is an
      atheist." Todd just goes, "Yeah, so what?"

      Jerry's proposition needs to be written so that he is
      affirming that certain behaviors mean *any undefined
      person* is an atheist, as Robert has shown with his
      suggested propositions in the most recent revision of the
      "status report", included below, which Jerry McDonald, in
      keeping with his "bad faith" behavior, has *conspicuosly
      neglected to include* in his last post to the list.

      As to the second point above, about Jerry's definition,
      Robert elaborates on that in the attached status report,
      as well!

      Hedge's Rules for Honorable Controversy, initially
      stipulated by Jerry McDonald but ignored by him ever
      since, are included at the end of Robert's latest
      revision.


      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

      -------------------------------------------------


      To: Jerry McDonald
      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Sunday, February 24, 2008, 9:55 p.m.

      Subject: Re: McDonald v. Baty Debate Status Report (revised)!

      (Oops! Sorry about that. I should have had "does not believe"
      instead of "believes" in the status report definition of "evidence"
      I've corrected it in this version of the message.-RLBaty)

      Jerry, in further confirmation that you have yet to proceed to
      negotiate in good faith, you conclude with:

      > I WILL NOT BEND, I WILL NOT
      > COMPROMISE, AND I WILL NOT
      > GIVE IN TO YOUR DEMANDS.

      Jerry, you are in gross violation of the rules you indicated you
      would abide by. If you will not bend, will not compromise, and will
      not give in to my "demands", all of which I have done in response to
      your concerns as to my proposition, then you are in no position to
      further prosecute your desires for an open, honest, formal, oral
      debate in Fort Collins with me regarding such important public issues
      as I might be interested in di scussing with you.

      Jerry, I am not making "demands". I am trying to get you to simply
      negotiate in good faith and deal with the issues of interest to me.
      YOU wanted to discuss something with me, and we've got my proposition
      and definitions agreed to for that discussion.

      We can limit our discussion to my proposition as far as I am
      concerned.

      Following are the two propositions you had previously affirmed and
      which I asked you to either reaffirm or deny:

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #1:

      > If one does NOT believe that
      > God has the supernatural creative
      > power to create the universe in
      > six literal 24 hour days and age it
      > to where it would be billions of
      > years old in those six literal 24
      > hour days, then he is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald
      > Deny: Robert Baty

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition #2:

      > If anyone agrees to moderate
      > for an atheist in a debate with
      > Jerr y McDonald on the scientific
      > evidence of age as to the
      > universe and/or earth, then
      > that person is an atheist

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald
      > Deny: Robert Baty

      Jerry, those are interesting claims and you have now reaffirmed your
      affirmation that they are true to my denial. We could discuss one of
      them.

      That you now indicate that such claims constitute the premises of
      such arguments as you intend to make to show someone is an atheist,
      it is quite appropriate to propose that the truth of the above
      propositions be first resolved.

      Just as with definitions, I would not want the debate to digress into
      a semantic fuss over what an atheist is and what it takes to make an
      atheist...

      Therefore, your proposition as you propose it, fails to meet the
      standard of equity so as to match my proposition and "so clearly
      define the point at issue that there can be no misunderstanding ".

      If you are not running, Jerry , then you should be accepting one of
      the above as your proposition for the debate. They both go directly
      to one of the points at issue between us: A point that is most
      assuredly, properly and "so clearly definable that there can be no
      misunderstanding" that we can "debate" it.

      You have boldly proclaimed that you would use the above and such
      arguments to try and show I am an atheist.

      I'm not interested in chasing your rabbits, Jerry.

      One argument is enough for me, and I've only proposed, for my side,
      that one argument be considered (i.e., the "Goliath of GRAS" and its
      major premise).

      Jerry, if you succeed with your "God can make it more and less than
      10,000 years old at the same time" or "only atheists moderate for
      atheists" argument, then we won't need to proceed to your further
      arguments.

      If you fail with those arguments, Jerry, then we can proceed in our
      next debate to take up your next argument if you and I are both
      willing.

      Alternatively, if you, in continuing bad faith, insist on the
      following proposition:

      > The evidence concludes that
      > Robert Baty is an atheist,

      then I think it appropriate, among other things, that you limit the
      stipulated "evidence" definition to what you believe to be your best
      argument; one of the above or something similar such as you have made
      reference to...

      Jerry, you propose that an atheist is one who:

      > "does not believe in the God
      > of the Bible"

      Since I do believe in the God of the Bible, I think the record here
      shows that, if anything, your definition of "atheist", that goes to
      the "precise point at issue", is really (ie., such as is
      reasonably "concluded from the evidence") one who:

      > disagrees with Jerry McDonald
      > as to how the Bible should be
      > interpreted.

      That being the case, by stipulated definition, I am guilty as charged.

      So, do you want to give up your "atheist" argument and negotiate on
      some other proposition for you; your "age" argument already having
      been shown to be something there is nothing to debate with me given
      your present state of belief that your interpretation trumps any
      evidence to the contrary.

      Or, Jerry, do you wish to withdraw as to your side of this and simply
      debate my proposition for which we are already in agreement as to the
      proposition and the stipulated definitions?

      Jerry, in showing further bad faith, you failed to amend the status
      report to actually and explicitly input your preferred proposition
      and stipulated definitions and such other details as you may now wish
      to deal with.

      Please do so in order that we may continue as you may desire, and if
      you amend your course to act in good faith and to negotiate further
      for that debate YOU were wanting to produce.

      I have again revised the status report as shown following my name
      below to include what appears to be your preferred proposition and
      real (i.e., "concluded from the evidence"), not alleged, stipulated
      definitions.

      As indicated, we won't need to debate your proposition, Jerry. We'll
      just announce our agreement that I disagree with you and that, based
      on your opinion, that makes me an atheist.

      You may amend the status as you wish, and we will proceed
      accordingly. Please note the date and time of your revisions in
      order to keep things orderly.


      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ----------------------------------

      Debate status report: 02/24/2008; 9:55 p.m MT

      Robert Baty's Proposition:

      > If the Bible is God's word (the text)
      > and says everything began over a
      > period of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour days
      > occurring a few thousand years
      > ago, and there is empirical evidence
      > that some thing i s actually much
      > older than a few thousand years,
      > then the in terpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      > Affirm: Robert Baty
      > Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

      Stipulated Definitions:

      > God's word: a communication
      > from God, in words, that cannot
      > be w rong

      > Says: the words themselves,
      > though they may "mean"
      > something other than what
      > they "say".

      > Few thousand years: more
      > than 10,000.

      > Empirical evidence that some
      > thing is actually much older
      > than a few thousand years:
      > some thing is actually much
      > older than a few thousand
      > years and w e can so
      > determine with reference to
      > evidence independent of the
      > Word of God.

      > Interpreted: held to "mean",
      > possibly in error.

      > Accepted: Robert Baty
      > Accepted: Jerry McDonald

      Jerry McDonald's Proposition:

      > The evidence concludes that
      > Robert Baty is an atheist.

      > Affirm: Jerry McDonald
      > Affirm: Robert Baty

      Stipulated Definitions:

      > Evidence: indications that
      > one does not believe that God
      > can create a married bachelor
      > and some thing that is both
      > less than 10,000 years old
      > and more than 10,000
      > years old at the same time,
      > and that one might accept
      > the role of moderator for
      > an atheist in a scientific,
      > not theological, debate
      > over the age of stuff.

      > Concludes: Jerry McDonald
      > decides so.

      > Robert Baty: Robert Baty

      > Atheist: one who does not
      > agree with Jerry McDonald
      > regarding the interpretation
      > of the Bible.

      > Accepted: Robert Baty
      > Accepted: (Jerry McDonald????)

      Other details/logistics:

      > 1. Jerry McDonald in cooperation
      > with Marty Trujill o are to arrange
      > for an appr opriate venue of their
      > choosing in Fort Collins, CO; at
      > no cost to Robert Baty.

      > 2. The debate will be an oral,
      > public debate, for the record.

      > 3. Each participant agrees to
      > endeavor in good faith to
      > strictly adhere to Hedge's 7
      > rules of honorable discourse.
      > (See summary below.)

      > 4. Robert Baty will ask for no
      > reimbursements.

      > 5. Other details are to be worked
      > out in good faith as between
      > Jerry McDonald and Robert Bat y.

      > Accept: Robert Baty
      > Accept: Jerry McDonald

      Summary of Hedge's 7 Rules:

      1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed and the
      precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there can
      be no misunderstanding respecting them.

      2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a
      footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate, each should
      regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge and desire
      for truth, with himself and that it is possible therefore that he may
      be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

      3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect, in regard
      to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All
      expressions may be considered unmeaning which contribute nothing to
      the proof in question, such as desultory remarks, and declamatory
      expressions, all technical ambiguities and equivocal expressions.

      4. Personal reflections on an adersary should in no instance be
      indulged in. Whatever his private character, his follies are not to
      be named, nor allu ded to in controversy. Personal reflections are
      not only destitute of effect in respect to the question in
      discussion, but are productive of real evil

      5. No one has a right to accuse his adversary with indirect motives.

      6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who
      maintai ns it, unless he expressly avows them.

      7 As truth and not victory is the professed object of controversy,
      whatever proofs may be on either side should be examined with
      fairness and candor, and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by arts
      or sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit,
      cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable
      discourse.

      -----------------------------
      -----------------------------
    • Jerry McDonald
      It is not important hat you deny or sustain it here. It is important that you deny it in debate. Again here is my proposition: Propositions for Debate
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 25, 2008
        It is not important hat you deny or sustain it here. It is important that you deny it in debate. Again here is my proposition:

        Propositions for Debate
        McDonald Vs. Baty

        1. “Resolved: The evidence concludes that Robert Baty is an atheist.”

        Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
        Deny:????


        2. “If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.”

        Affirm: Robert Baty
        Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

        In Christ Jesus
        Jerry D. McDonald




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.