debates

[dairygirl4u2c]

they all have their pros and cons i know

personally the optimal type is where one on one with another person the people allow each other a lot of time to respond with thoughtful questions and research and each person has others in the back to confer with. of course this would take forever.

[PioFan]

I said "one on one through email/phatmass" because through the technology of the internet, the debate on a forum like this one can be joined by many people throughout the world. Time can be taken to research and formulate thoughtful responses. It would be next to impossible to achieve the same results in an "in person" type of venue. Not everyone cares to use AIM, or any other "instant" messenger program, so it limits the debate even more than the regular internet.

[Guest Eremite]

I prefer one on one written debates, where each person can issue well thought out, documented responses to one another, and challenge eachother's responses.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Eremite

[yiannii]

I prefer written debates because they give each participant time to research and write well structured arguments.

[Timothy]

I think the most effective type of debate is through an independent 3rd person. The 3rd person helps point out the flaws and the positive points of each person view point. They also help calm down the situation if it starts to get to intense to make forward progress. When the debate is one on one it seems both parties can become stubborn and close their mind to the Truth. In regards to email/phorum communication, I believe it can be effective for providing great research to another person and allowing that person the time to cool down and respond with grace. However, I do not believe that it is the most effective manner to truly reach out and move somebody to follow Christ. I believe you can be far more effective in person, because you can look into their eyes. So, with the options given here I chose one on one, although I think having a 3rd person is the most effective method.

[God Conquers]

Definately one on one in person.

That way you can see reactions and guage emaotional response, ask questions, see what people are really getting at.

It is also much more amenable to intimidation with physical stature, table-hitting, shouting etc.

[Cam42]

One on one in person. Particularly, because it is harder to refute the eyes and soul of a person. It also forces one to know the scholarly things with which one knows things. It must be recalled at a moments notice.

It promotes a fuller knowledge in my opinion. What do I mean? I can take days to look this stuff up, but if I can recall it on a moments notice, then I can honestly say I truly know what it is I am discussing.

I attempt that here. I answer as quickly as possible and in these "bursts" I recall knowledge that I have already. I simply support the knowledge with documentation and avoid opining as much as possible. That is true scholarship. That is true debate.

Cam

[Carnanc]

didn't see the in person, or I would have voted that.

[MichaelFilo]

Depends what you are debatin for. If it's for an audeince, probably something typed up or written would be best. However, if you are debating to convince the person across from you, a one on one, because the internet never cuts it. Few people back down, and at best getese them thinking but their own thoughts on the matter will soon overpower what you said. The best form of debate is the kind where it is one on one and an audience listens.

God bless,
Mikey