Only adult in the room?

[Korah]

Hey, I'm not trying to insult the Forum or anyone here, but things are just crazy these days. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld fears to tread on college campuses for fear of getting blackballed on political correctness--nobody can tolerate humor any more. I'd like to suggest it's worse than that. No one can tolerate serious discussion any more. How about we reserve say, this one thread for no side-tracking on the one side to gay weddings nor knee-jerk rejection of supernaturalism and on the other side no assumption that appeal to the Bible (or Koran or religious Law) settles anything either.
How about someone suggests something for discussion and I decide if it's a subject challenging adult conversation. When that plays out (maybe really quickly, as people's sensibilities seem to get trampled upon really quickly) we can settle on some other subject for adult discussion.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Korah]
I find it odd that you would use a comedian feeling stifled by political correctness as an example of people having problem with tolerating serious discussion. How exactly do gay jokes facilitate serious adult conversation?

[Zzyzx]

.
It seems almost invariable that those who complain about these debates are people who do not fare well in debate – and are making excuses for their failings. "Nobody is smart enough to understand me" or "They are being unfair" or "Moderators favor the other guy" or "Christians are discriminated against" (on a Christian-owned and administered site), or "They are not adult enough to debate" or whatever they can dream up rather than recognizing that the reason they do not fare well is likely to be 1) attempting to defend a weak or false position, 2) lack of debate ability, or 3) delusion of superiority for themselves or their position.

In short, it is inappropriate to insult the Forum or its members (or admin) and more appropriate to look in a mirror.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Action

Thread moved to RR. Ranting about the ability of others is not debating issues



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]
OK.
Guess we'll see how we come out in our upcoming debate. I'll be defending the Thesis, "There are seven written eyewitness sources in the four gospels".
Z says it will be a pain. I say it should be fun.
By the way, I haven't voted yet. Maybe the Great Debate will clarify whether my "no" vote would have been perspicacious.

[Zzyzx]

.

Guess we'll see how we come out in our upcoming debate. I'll be defending the Thesis, "There are seven written eyewitness sources in the four gospels".

Correction: Z observes that the claim of "seven written eyewitness accounts" has already been watered down in PM to be "academic constructs" (hypothetical, conjecture, opinion) AND to be less than seven (unless personal opinion is accepted as evidence).

Z says it will be a pain. I say it should be fun.

We shall see.

Maybe the Great Debate will clarify whether my "no" vote would have been perspicacious.

"Great Debate"? I do not suffer delusions of grandeur. Do you?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]
Z took great "pains" to assure that all the powers-that-be here will be over-seeing The Great Debate. He may find out that the "pain" is on him. I don't consider even danmark as an inveterate enemy. In fact my refusal to debate Z last year was my (unsuccessful) maneuver to get danmark as my opponent instead of Z.

I tried pulling a similar stunt this year, but Z didn't twitch an eyelid. He knew he didn't have to Mod someone, no matter how hateful he was to me. No matter, I got the better of that guy(?) anyway.

[Zzyzx]

.

Z took great "pains" to assure that all the powers-that-be here will be over-seeing The Great Debate.

Correction: "The Great Debate" is NOT my terminology or attitude. I have no delusions of grandeur – and see nothing special in a H2H debate with someone I consider marginally qualified.


Z stated, verbatim, in PM that he would

Ask Otseng, Dianaiaid and Danmark to closely monitor the debate to insure that Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines are followed, that there are no personal comments, that all claims are substantiated, and that no disreputable or dishonest tactics are used – and will ask Otseng to set up the H2H if he approves.

Is there some objection to 1) having Forum Rules and Guidelines followed, 2) no personal comments, 3) claims substantiated, and 4) having no disreputable or dishonest tactics used?

Which of those is unacceptable? It would seem as though anyone who intended to debate honorably would agree completely.

He may find out that the "pain" is on him.

We shall see

I don't consider even danmark as an inveterate enemy. In fact my refusal to debate Z last year was my (unsuccessful) maneuver to get danmark as my opponent instead of Z.

Z has no need to seek friends or enemies to oversee the proposed debate. Notice that two are Theists and one Non-Theist. However, I respect the judgment and fairness of those people after years of observing their actions.

I tried pulling a similar stunt this year, but Z didn't twitch an eyelid.

Why are stunts required? If I propose to debate someone H2H I say so in thread or in PM.

He knew he didn't have to Mod someone, no matter how hateful he was to me.

What the heck would that have to do with anything – even if it was true (which it is not). No one is qualified to state what another is thinking.

No matter, I got the better of that guy(?) anyway.

Self-aggrandizement / boasting (even if it was true – which has not been established) is crass and gross.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]
I suppose you're going to deny you're the one who locked me out of the general forums as I complained about in the Comment, Suggestions sub-forum. Or is some underling currying favor with you by helping out?
With "confederates" working for you, how can we keep you from knowing about the rebellion afoot?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 9 by Korah]
Got back in time.
Z-man, I'm just teasing about your conspiracy to lock me out and sabotage The Great Debate you're going to lose.
(When is he going to learn that the way NOT to get teased is to be a good sport about it.)