You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk - Page 6

crakjak · #51 03-23-2009, 08:02 PM

Are we going to have a debate in the debated forum, or are we going to argue on this thread?

Gentlemen?

TK Burk · #52 03-23-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Are we going to have a debate in the debated forum, or are we going to argue on this thread?

Gentlemen?

Like I said, I am ready and willing to debate the subject that we agreed on.

Praxeas · #53 03-23-2009, 09:32 PM

As I said Brother, in any debate part of the "debate" is not only pointing out the flaws in the other persons view but pointing out the logical fallacies, such as a red herring, and pointing out your opponent did not address a certain point you made.

Again, we have a couple rounds of cross examination where you can ask direct pointed questions, one at a time, get a response and respond back and then a final concluding remarks where you can sum up your opponents lack of response or whatever. Just like in a court where the lawyers get a final say to sum up the other sides lack of evidence.

Bro Anderson, you still have a reply left and then his and then you have a chance to ask him direct questions. After all that you have the chance to sum up whether or not he answered any of your points or whatever.

That is how debates go sometimes

Praxeas · #54 03-23-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowas

It seems we are at an impasse at this point.
To me the final and complete arbitrator would be Praxeas.
What does he say whose turn it is and which response should be the next response. and what questions should be answered at this point in the debate, if any.
Praxeas, Decide if you can on who should do what and who should do the other.

I already stated several times now and I PMd Bro Anderson. You can't always expect the opponent to answer the way you want. This isn't an interview. It's a debate and part of a good debate is not only being ready with your arguments but effectively demolishing your opponents argument, even if that includes pointing out he did not address certain issues.

It's not a time to give up. Continue with the debate. As I said already we will have a cross examination time. Then we will have a concluding remarks with no word limit and the those reading can decide who came out ahead.

The question is then, Did B Anderson represent his assertion (not an accusation) that the Christ of AFP is not the true Christ of Scriptures? Or was B Burk able to refute his assertions and or prove the Christ of AFP is indeed the Christ of the scriptures?

Nobody is required to answer or address any point at all but if those viewing are to judge based on what the goal was and one side avoids addressing the other sides point just to introduce red herring comments, then those judging have to conclude one side did not "win" based on what the debate was about.

I think both should finish the debate and THEN let the others decide,

crakjak · #55 03-23-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Like I said, I am ready and willing to debate the subject that we agreed on.

Bro. Anderson? How about Prax's suggestions? Can't we go forward?

Steve Epley · #56 03-23-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Bro. Anderson? How about Prax's suggestions? Can't we go forward?

I hope they would Prax will be fair.

Evang.Benincasa · #57 03-23-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Are we going to have a debate in the debated forum, or are we going to argue on this thread?

Gentlemen?

What happened to the debate?

Evang.Benincasa · #58 03-23-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Bro. Anderson? How about Prax's suggestions? Can't we go forward?

What happened to the debate?

Evang.Benincasa · #59 03-23-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I hope they would Prax will be fair.

Keep hope alive.

Evang.Benincasa · #60 03-23-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As I said Brother, in any debate part of the "debate" is not only pointing out the flaws in the other persons view but pointing out the logical fallacies, such as a red herring, and pointing out your opponent did not address a certain point you made.

Again, we have a couple rounds of cross examination where you can ask direct pointed questions, one at a time, get a response and respond back and then a final concluding remarks where you can sum up your opponents lack of response or whatever. Just like in a court where the lawyers get a final say to sum up the other sides lack of evidence.

Bro Anderson, you still have a reply left and then his and then you have a chance to ask him direct questions. After all that you have the chance to sum up whether or not he answered any of your points or whatever.

That is how debates go sometimes

Prax you are the man.

Thank you for your commitment in helping this debate to be possible.

I doubt Brother Anderson will stay away from this debate. He is a boxer, and he does it to stay in shape.