Was JustIgnoreMe Clear about what he wanted to debate?
In this debate He banned me, called me names and everything because he didn't see my arguments as being in any way relevant to what he wanted to debate. I tried my best to get on to the topic that he actually did want to discuss, but my best guess at what he wanted to discuss was "Can a bible provide any measure of moral objectivity?"
He told me that this was **"basically the opposite of my [what he was trying to]debate."** at which point I realized that I need some help trying to understand what he actually wants to dispute. Never mind whether this can reasonably be figured out by reading his debate title and description. Can you help me understand the dispute he wants to engage in?
Yes (Let me help you )
Side Score: 12
Winning Side! |
 |
No (He is still being unclear)
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
I thought so, though I can understand why someone would have a tough time parsing it. If you can't differentiate between the content and the mechanisms by which that content is delivered, then it might seem to be a different question than what is being asked. My argument involved a lack of definition or formula to determine what "morality" actually is in the Bible, as well as the preponderance of apparently contradictory statements contained therein. Given that I was not chastised or banned, I'd say this was the type of answer he was looking for. Side: Yes (Let me help you )
1
point
This IS Lateral thought. There's a million debates on here as to whether or not the Bible is moral, but fewer regarding the actual nature of how it is presented. I, for one, can't say I've seen another like it...at least until I did a similar one a few minutes ago. I do think it was harsh for you to be banned, FWIW. Side: Yes (Let me help you )
Maybe a clue to the confusion is here: On JustIgnoreMe's profile page the question was posed again Challenge Debate: Is the biblical version of God useful as a FOUNDATION for morality? This debate is not meant to focus on whether the Bible is at odds with currently acceptable standards of morality, but whether the Bible itself has specific flaws which make it a poor foundation for morality. Here JustIgnoreMe words his question more precisely making it a different question all together. To paraphrase JustIgnoreMe's words "does the Bible have specific flaws and if so, do these flaws make it a poor foundation for morality." IMHO since JustIgnoreMe did not mention flaws in the first wording of the question, JustIgnoreMe was not clear enough. This is NOT a justification for going off on you. Soooooo Hmmmmmmm Side: Yes (Let me help you )
1
point
2
points
You didn't let him debate what the debate was created for - well then, kudos. I clearly wanted to debate whether the Bible is the ontological source for morality, but you clearly have no idea what that means. And clearly can't just create a different debate if that is the one you want. Side: No (He is still being unclear)
No you see, I would be fine discussing whether the Bible is the ontological source for morality. I thought we should start by establishing whether ANY form of scripture can be used as an ontological source for morality, before bothering to address the specific source that you are obsessed with discrediting. Your attempts to make me look stupid may eventually turn on you. Side: No (He is still being unclear)
|
1
point
I admit it is not clear to every dolt that exists what question I was asking. Once atypican gets his whining out of his sytem, I'll likely recreate it using the definitions I already gave him: THE Bible: the canonized books of the Old and New Testament. foundation: the ontological source of morality: what actions "should" be chosen Though he still says "I confess I have no idea what you want to dispute", so I am not sure if that will help in his case. Side: No (He is still being unclear)
1
point
Though "still being unclear" is a bit laughable. After telling him: -"The Bible means THE Bible" -"If you want to debate a different bible - just create a different debate" -"I have specifically said THE Bible several times - you either know exactly what I mean, or you should look elsewhere." -"Is there a better way to say "THE" BIBLE than "the Bible" (from the title of the debate) - not looking for choose a different bible or rip pages out answers" and: -"THE Bible: the canonized books of the Old and New Testament." As you can see, he still thinks I am trying to debate "Can a bible ..." Side: Yes (Let me help you )
You clearly just wanted to bash on THE Bible, instead of talk plainly about scripture's role in moral development. I called you to have "the interesting discussion", and you got mad because you were just wanting the chance to reiterate once again that you don't believe in fairy tales. Your efforts to make me look stupid might eventually turn on you. Side: Yes (Let me help you )
|
