BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[defcon]

Who said word count "doesn't matter"?

Word count does matter.

We don't want to see any 20,000 word essays submitted as posts.

So we asked the participants to keep their posts to a recommended 6,000 words.

So then by "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit, the participants understand that to be "As long as I don't post 20,000 words I'm fine"? C'mon Knight - this is throwing up all sorts of flags. As moderator, you need to treat both participants fairly.

 

[Bob Enyart]

WHAT are you thinking?

WHAT are you thinking?

But now to just say it was a recommendation?
I wouldn't call the phrase "limit is extremely tight" as a recommendation.

If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

We'll never know.

To RightIdea: I noticed a couple rounds ago you asked somebody for something he was smoking. Was that request ever taken literally?

You crack me up. The rules explicitly say: “recommended.”

“The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words…”

I realize you like to demonstrate that you’re able to criticize your own side, and that’s admirable. But it’s rather bizarre to suggest that this is just “now” being called a recommendation when the rules say: “recommended maximum word limit.”

Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

Knight’s statement after round three was an encouragement to stay focused on the debate, and it was not a repeal of one of the rules. And by recommendation, if there is not provocation, it is reasonable to take the limit as a recommendation, meaning that there is a few percentage points of leeway. If there is provocation, then the recommendation margin would increase proportionately to the provocation.

To Shimei: the answer is: no.

To defcon: yes, we would know, based on past behavior. In Battle Royale VII, the back and forth interaction was very similar to BR X. And when Zakath went AWOL, the response from the moderator, Knight, and from me was to wait, and wait, and wait… to give Zakath a chance to post! There was no bias to rule against Zakath because TOL is a Christian site. Likewise, it should be obvious, that Sam could post late, or long, or copy and paste in his lengthy argument on Isaiah written by someone else, and the bottom line for TOL and me is that we want the best argument Sam can muster. So, the answer is no, of course we would not care if Sam went 10% over the limit, or 20% for that matter. My goal is to debate the issue, and win or lose on the merits.

NOTE ABOUT WORD COUNT
Much has been made in the grandstands and in the coliseum about the recommended 6,000 word count limit. The 6,000 word count limit is a recommended limit (as stated in the rules) and the spirit of the rule is to keep the posts at a reasonable word length. The bottom line is TOL is looking for a substantive debate about God's foreknowledge not a trivial debate about word counts.

The substantive qualities of this debate take preeminence over that quantitate elements of this debate.

And finally, again to RightIdea: I don’t know WHAT you’re thinking?? Really? What are you thinking?

-Bob

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete,

You said:

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.

If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?

And Bob answered,saying:

No.

So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort.

Who is being intellectually dishonest here?You say that the Lord Jesus was wrong in His belief that the fig tree would bear fruit despite the fact that Bob himself said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

Clete,before you start accusing others of being intellectually dishonest perhaps you should consider Bob's own words.Here he lists a "promise" that the Lord did not keep according to him:

Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).[emphasis mine]

It is you who is either ignorant of what Bob said previously or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

If the Lord Jesus promised to return soon,and then He did not return soon then He broke His promise.But you say that God does not break His promises.If Bob is correct in his interpretation of these verses then it is evident that He did break a promise.

If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View?

I have not mischaracterized a thing that Bob Enyart has said.

If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.

Why is it that when no one defending Bob Enyart has an "intelligent" answer they always end up saying things like "tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared"?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

When I made the above comment I was merely attempting to get both combatants less focused on the unimportant debate procedures and more focused on the substance of the debate.

The truth is there have been literally dozens of rules violations of all types in BX and BOTH Sam and Bob could have been penalized for these violations but would that really be what we want?

Do we really want to focus more an the small rules violations or do we really want to focus on the substance of the debate?

What we do want is to get all the best arguments out in this debate regardless of small rule violations that are only a distraction.

Major rules violations would be a different story. But even then it would be a judgement call as to penalizing the participant.

For instance....
Sam had a what I would call a somewhat MAJOR violation in his last post but it wasn't worth making a big deal out because it would have distracted from the substance of Sam's post.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Rules are rules, unless you're a relativist, like Knight.

And fools are fools, like fool.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

No.

 

[fool]

When I made the above comment I was merely attempting to get both combatants less focused on the unimportant debate procedures and more focused on the substance of the debate.

The truth is there have been literally dozens of rules violations of all types in BX and BOTH Sam and Bob could have been penalized for these violations but would that really be what we want?

Do we really want to focus more an the small rules violations or do we really want to focus on the substance of the debate?

What we do want is to get all the best arguments out in this debate regardless of small rule violations that are only a distraction.

Major rules violations would be a different story. But even then it would be a judgement call as to penalizing the participant.

For instance....
Sam had a what I would call a somewhat MAJOR violation in his last post but it wasn't worth making a big deal out because it would have distracted from the substance of Sam's post.

Why not just enforce the rules and shut everybody up? What's the point in having rules if your not gonna enforce them?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Why not just enforce the rules and shut everybody up? What's the point in having rules if your not gonna enforce them?

Why would you ask a question and also include my quote that contains a perfectly reasonable answer to your question in it? :kookoo:

 

[RightIdea]

Bob, you yourself didn't interpret the rules that way until round 9. You and Knight came up with this interpretation of the rules at the end of round 9 to justify your post. How can you claim otherwise? You wrote 8b with the understanding that you knew your remaining word count was extremely limited. You told me so, yourself, when we had a conversation about it. This interpretation is brand new, and that's where the problem lies.

I don't care what the rules were, in particular. If there was never a word limit, or if it was an average per post for each, or an average per post for the debate overall (such that you could use the words he doesn't use) or just an "approximate" guide of 6,000 words (which your round 8b isn't even close to fulfilling in spirit), I wouldnt' have cared which rules were in place. The problem is when you and the moderator figure out a new way to interpret the rules, a way which which no one has interpreted the rules up to this point, including yourself.

48 hours ago, your lack of remaining word count was a problem, from your own mouth. Suddenly, it is not. That is a change. And you can't change how the debate is run in round 9. That is wholly unfair to Lamerson.



Finally, I do not enjoy criticizing my own side. I believe we must stand on the dual principles of truth and love, and if we focus on either at the expense of the other, we're led astray and we cause problems in people's lives. I don't at all believe that you went into this debate with the intention of changing the rules. I don't even think you intented to do it when you wrote round 8. I'm positive you didn't. Rather, I think you gave into temptation in the heat of the moment, out of frustration, something that is completely forgiveable, but I do think you need to repent of it first.

You yourself thought you had a word count problem 48 hours ago. Today, suddenly you do not. How can you say this has been the interpretation all along, in light of that? And how can you now say that 8b was written in the spirit of such an approximate 6,000 word count concept? It's almost 50% over that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Right Idea.... you are missing the point.

I do think that Bob needs to keep his 10th round post to the recommended limit.

And Bob probably should have made some of his other posts shorter.

But none of this is worth making a big deal out of! Truth be told, Bob has spent a large portion of the debate re-answering questions 2 and 3 times that he has already answered.

Also....
Sam, posted a large bit of pre-written text that wasn't written by him nor for this debate! Should I go back and disqualify that post of Sam's??? I wouldn't do that to Sam because it isn't worth it!

Other rule violations...
Sam was late on a post, Bob was late on a post, Sam misused the question numbering system and Bob made a mistake on the question numbering system - So what?????

In the end we are getting a really good debate which was the goal from the beginning!

 

[drbrumley]

For future reference, maybe a 10,000 word LIMIT should be ENFORCED!

 

[fool]

Why would you ask a question and also include my quote that contains a perfectly reasonable answer to your question in it? :kookoo:

You mean a relatively reasonable answer.
A perfectly reasonable thing to do would be enforce the rules, then there can be no doubt as to the fairness of the venue. Bob is your pastor, if I were you I would do everything possible to insure that there could not possibly be any bias on the part of host. Doing this is very simple. Enforce the rules as written, if a post is to long snip it at 6000. If copywritten material has been pirated delete it. If someone is smoking in the bathroom throw a bucket of water over the door. We need an absolutly fair debate, not a relatively fair one.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

48 hours ago, your lack of remaining word count was a problem, from your own mouth. Suddenly, it is not. That is a change. And you can't change how the debate is run in round 9. That is wholly unfair to Lamerson.

I admit I did get involved in this because I was frustrated that people were actually making a big deal of this. It's so silly!

I almost made a statement regarding this subject earlier in the debate but I decided against it so as to not distract from the debate.

 

[drbrumley]

I agree with Knight, both made mistakes.

Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You mean a relatively reasonable answer.
A perfectly reasonable thing to do would be enforce the rules, then there can be no doubt as to the fairness of the venue. Bob is your pastor, if I were you I would do everything possible to insure that there could not possibly be any bias on the part of host. Doing this is very simple. Enforce the rules as written, if a post is to long snip it at 6000. If copywritten material has been pirated delete it. If someone is smoking in the bathroom throw a bucket of water over the door. We need an absolutly fair debate, not a relatively fair one.

Great point!

Which is why I am stepping in to enforce the rules more accurately.

The word limit is a "reccomended word limit".

Therefore I would have to CHANGE the rules to make the word limit a hard count.

Get it?

I didn't think so.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.

Not for me.

Both Sam and Bob have done a marvelous job in BR X and they should continue to focus on the substance of the debate.

 

[Poly]

I agree with Knight, both made mistakes.

Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.

I have to disagree with you here, drb. No amount of worthless, wasted bickering over a very silly and small issue can take away from the substance that's been given in this debate.

 

[RightIdea]

Knight, I'm totally supportive of those decisions to let some things slide in the spirit of good debate. I've no quarrel there whatsoever. (And weren't both late posts at least mostly beyond the control of the combatants? So that certainly couldn't be held against them, especially when they took measures to show good faith that their post had been entirely composed at that time.)

But where's the good faith here? This was a decision made by the moderator prior to the posting, for the express purpose of making it possible for one side to do something they hitherto could not do. And that is favoritism on its face. That is the problem. Letting some things slide is totally cool, I'm for that, in the interest of the debate. It is the motive here that particularly creates the problem. In round 9, the new interpretation was applied for the specific purpose of allowing Bob to go beyond what he himself believed to be his limited word count. Bob himself recognized he was stuck, and you made this ruling to "unstick" him.

I love ya, but that is not fair.

 

[defcon]

I know it must be tough for RightIdea to be taking the side he is on, but I am growing to respect RightIdea more and more for it :thumb:. Bob and Knight, I'm disappointed you have taken this as casual as you have. I'm sure Sam reading these posts would have a different opinion of the new "interpretation" of the rules.

This is simply an issue of integrity. The word count has been an issue since the start of Battle Royale and Sam pointed out that Bob's posts were excessive. No one was informed that in reality they weren't excessive until Round 9.

Bob, it is easy to claim that this wouldn't have happened if the roles were reversed. To say that this excuses Knight's ruling and gives you the right to post as you like is laughable.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I'm totally supportive of those decisions to let some things slide in the spirit of good debate. I've no quarrel there whatsoever. (And weren't both late posts at least mostly beyond the control of the combatants? So that certainly couldn't be held against them, especially when they took measures to show good faith that their post had been entirely composed at that time.)

But where's the good faith here? This was a decision made by the moderator prior to the posting, for the express purpose of making it possible for one side to do something they hitherto could not do. And that is favoritism on its face. That is the problem. Letting some things slide is totally cool, I'm for that, in the interest of the debate. It is the motive here that particularly creates the problem. In round 9, the new interpretation was applied for the specific purpose of allowing Bob to go beyond what he himself believed to be his limited word count. Bob himself recognized he was stuck, and you made this ruling to "unstick" him.

I love ya, but that is not fair.

So, your asking that I change the rules that were agreed to by both participants?

You want me to change the rules from "recommended limit" to "hard limit"?

I don't think that seems very fair.