It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:00 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 37  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6203
Well, it looks like Brent called Will''s bluff. Over in pundits at MAD he accepted Will's challenge to a public debate. Here is what Brent said:

=======

Hi folks,

I've not responded further to Will's theories because I recently learned that John Larson of Mormon Expression is interested in interviewing me about the manuscripts in the Book of Abraham collection. I expressed openness to the request and began sifting through online forums for issues that may interest cybercitizens. I knew that Will's celebrated FAIR 2010 presentation would figure prominently, but I didn't expect to stumble across such a gracious offer from Will himself...

Quote:
[William Schryver:] As for [Nomad's] desire to see a debate between me and Metcalfe on the topic of the meaning and purpose of the KEP, I have to agree with him that I don't believe Brent would consent to such a thing. That said, lest there be any question whatsoever, I would welcome such an opportunity.... I would consent to such an arrangement in a heartbeat.


and...

Quote:
[William Schryver:] At any rate, I admit that the notion of a Schryver/Metcalfe debate is merely a fleeting fantasy. I suspect that, after a suitable period of silence, he'll finally just quietly agree with my findings and that will be the end of that.


Well, I'm happy to turn Will's "fleeting fantasy" into stark reality.

In short, Will, I accept your invitation to publicly discuss the Book of Abraham—and John Larson of Mormon Expression has agreed to stream it live over the Internet. He has also agreed to allow FAIR (or the organization of your choice) to subsequently distribute the Mormon Expression podcast.

I'd like our discussion to focus on three questions:

- Were Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2 dictated by Joseph Smith in early July 1835?

- Are the three Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language dependent on Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2?

- Was William W. Phelps—in lieu of Joseph Smith—the authorial mind behind of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project?

If I understand your thesis, you would answer each of these questions in the affirmative. I, rather obviously, disagree. Still, I'm confident that we can have a civil exchange of ideas.

Let me know when you're available for a recording session and I'll get you in touch with John.

All the best,

</brent>
========================

Everyone place your bets!

I'm betting Will is s***ing himself right now. But either way this can't be good. If he shows up, he gets creamed. If he doesn't, well, that would be even worse for Will and his pet theory.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:29 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13427
It will be interesting to see if Will can defend his theory. He certainly wasn't able to do so in Chris's thoughtful thread, and instead just personally attacked Chris. I would think even Will's fans would be embarrassed by such a performance, but since that's also the method of fans like Nomad, as well, perhaps it won't disturb them.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6203
Wilbur responds accordingly:

===============================

My “offer”?

Where, exactly did I “offer” anything?

I have read the quotes cited, and I see only that I expressed a willingness to engage in a hypothetical debate which someone else had suggested.

In view of such manifest exegetical deficiencies, one might well wonder why Mr. Metcalfe is apparently so willing to publicly debate anything.

Nevertheless, while I am most certainly not interested in some rinky-dink podcast chat of these very important issues, I will enthusiastically welcome a formal public debate with Mr. Brent Metcalfe on The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, according to the following general terms and conditions:

First of all, I will publish, within a reasonably short period of time, in a popular Mormon Studies journal (most likely The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture), a detailed article describing the findings upon which my FAIR presentation was based.

After that article is published, Mr. Metcalfe must publish, within a reasonably short period of time (in a journal of his choice) an article rebutting my arguments and evidence as presented in my previously published article.

Following the publication of the Metcalfe article, a mutually acceptable moderator will be selected, and arrangements made for a public debate of the merits of the opposing viewpoints, in a mutually acceptable venue, such as a Sunstone or FAIR conference. The debate will be limited to the arguments previously presented in the published articles.

The parameters of the debate will conform, in structure, to the long-established Lincoln/Douglas debating format, and according to the following time limits for each speech:

•Schryver Affirmative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes
`

•Metcalfe cross-examination of Schryver – 10 minutes
`

•10 minute break
`

•Metcalfe Negative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes
`

•Schryver cross-examination of Metcalfe – 10 minutes
`

•10 minute break
`

•Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes
`

•Metcalfe Negative Rebuttal – 30 minutes
`

•Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes


A total of 3 hours.

A formal contract stipulating the terms and conditions of the debate will be prepared, and upon its signing by both parties, the countdown to the debate will begin.

I look forward to the ongoing discussion of these matters and the opportunity to publicly debate the merits of our respective arguments.

Sincerely,

William Schryver
=========================

Wilbur is so full of s***. He is trying to raise the stakes so high as to make Brent disinterested again. Why in the bloody hell MUST Brent publish something in a journal, in a "short period of time"(!) before Will is willing to debate him? Because Will doesn't want to be blindsided. He wants to know exactly what it is Brent will be arguing. WIll was the one taunting Brent and now he is refusing to debate unless he can make all these ridiculous stipulations. Three hour debate that needs only an hour? A friggin legal contract? Brent has to be puiblished in a "short" time? How short is short?

What a wuss.

If he were half as confident in his positions as he has been deceiving his followers into believe he is, he should have no problem debating Metcalfe in a podcast or online even. And there is nothing "rinky dink" about podcast debates and it is certainly a step up from these online debates that Will obviously has no problem doing. This is just another lame Schryver excuse. He acts like he is a 19 year-old Mike Tyson refusing to fight anywhere but Madison Square Gardens with the biggest contract (again, this is all about Will's ego wanting the brightest spotlight, nothing more), when in reality he is just bluffing again. He doesn't want this debate. AT ALL.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:44 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
Well, I suppose this is Will's only out.

I mean he surely can't debate Brent and come out standing up, and he doesn't want to decline the "invitation," and look foolish, so what else can he do but come up with ridiculous requirements so outrageous that no one in their right mind would agree to it?

Would we expect anything else?

;-)

Oh well, it will be nice to listen to Brent's podcast!

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:46 am 
AS A SIDE NOTE --

Now is the time to keep the pressure up on the apologists and not lose sight that the BofA controversy is a painful thorn in their side. Isn't that right, Kevin? I think it was the BofA problems that finally knocked our dear Kevin off his apologetic horses' ass. (That's payback for calling me the board ass)

I know you all hate it it when I keep bringing up Facsimile No. 3, but I really feel that those points are serious death blows to the credibility of Joseph Smith. The church leaders are no doubt concerned about how this makes the church look.

Seriously though, can anyone here imagine a conference talk extolling the truthfullness of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? I've yet to ever hear a General Authority say he knows those things are true. William Schryver knows they are not true and certainly wouldn't be surprised if the church removes them from his scriptures and leave them buried in the Times & Seasons. The church likes to bury things in the past or lock them up in the vault.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:58 am 
Now, as the thread topic goes, I think William is scared to death of Metcalfe, and rightfully so. Schryver would be hacked to pieces by Metcalfe and he knows it. Schryver doesn't want to have to answer direct questions in a conversational debate. I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to either if I was in his shoes. But duty calls.

William Schryver is a pussy.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:28 am
Posts: 7213
Will Schryver wrote:
My “offer”?

Where, exactly did I “offer” anything?

I have read the quotes cited, and I see only that I expressed a willingness to engage in a hypothetical debate which someone else had suggested.

In view of such manifest exegetical deficiencies, one might well wonder why Mr. Metcalfe is apparently so willing to publicly debate anything.

Nevertheless, while I am most certainly not interested in some rinky-dink podcast chat of these very important issues, I will enthusiastically welcome a formal public debate with Mr. Brent Metcalfe on The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, according to the following general terms and conditions:


OMG!!! He totally chickened out. Get this, people of much greater academic stature than Will have appeared on John Larsen's podcast, and Will acts as though he is too good to do so. He's full of crap. He totally chickened out. What a disappointment.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:09 am 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:07 pm
Posts: 504
Trevor wrote:
Will Schryver wrote:
My “offer”?

Where, exactly did I “offer” anything?

I have read the quotes cited, and I see only that I expressed a willingness to engage in a hypothetical debate which someone else had suggested.

In view of such manifest exegetical deficiencies, one might well wonder why Mr. Metcalfe is apparently so willing to publicly debate anything.

Nevertheless, while I am most certainly not interested in some rinky-dink podcast chat of these very important issues, I will enthusiastically welcome a formal public debate with Mr. Brent Metcalfe on The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, according to the following general terms and conditions:


OMG!!! He totally chickened out. Get this, people of much greater academic stature than Will have appeared on John Larsen's podcast, and Will acts as though he is too good to do so. He's full of crap. He totally chickened out. What a disappointment.

How hilarious!

Metcalfe bets a wrinkled ten dollar bill, which Schryver then sees and raises to a thousand dollars--and then is characterized as "chickening out."

Only in the Mormon Discussions Wonderland can such things occur.

lol!

_________________
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6203
I know. And get this. Will says it is because the debate topic is of such tremendous importance that it needs a more prestigious venue (nevermind the fact that a podcast would be heard by a much wider audience than a closed room session somewhere in Utah).

And yet just prior to his presentation he admitted that this argument wasn't really that significant at all because it doesn't address any of the critical arguments against Smith's ability to translate ancient documents. I mean really, even if what Will argued is true, it still doesn't change much as far as the toughest Book of Abraham criticisms go. Joseph Smith still proved he could not translate Egyptian, and we still know that it derived from a breathings text that has nothing to do with Abraham.

Now he acts as though the pinnacle of Book of Abraham apologetics rests on the question of whether or not the KEP came before or after the original translation?

Seriously??

I can't stop laughing at all of this. Will we already knew was an intellectual fraud and now we know he is a coward. He taunts Brent, and Brent called his bluff. Now Will is trying to quit while he's ahead, refusing to address valid criticisms of his theory online (already saying his time in Mormon Studies is near an end) and now trying to "stipulate" his way out of a very embarrassing exchange with the guy who has mopped the floors with him on the forums for years.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6203
Nomad, you're worshipping a walking vagina.

Get over it.

Quote:
Metcalfe bets a wrinkled ten dollar bill, which Schryver then sees and raises to a thousand dollars--and then is characterized as "chickening out."


No, Will has been throwing down these taunts and challenges for years, and he never expected Brent to agree to one. He said he'd agree to a debate in "a heartbeat" and now suddenly a heartbeat has become long drawn out list of stipulations about whether a debate can or should occur.

Will is a coward, period. He has proven this for years. I have refuted so many of his dumb comments on this forum it is hard to even keep track of them anymore, and everytime I challenge him to explain how he could get so many points incorrect and not be flat out lying, he flees the scene every time. WIll never had any intention of debating Brent. The "demands" he places on him before agreeing to one now are unprecedented in the history of debate. It is a joke that only moron like yourself could interpret as some kind of noble effort to "raise the stakes" to a higher level.

An intense debate covering the relevant issues can be handled in podcast just as well as in person. And Brent lives in Washington State. I don't suppose Will would be willing to travel that far to debate would he? No, of course not. Not enough Mormons there to cheer him on.

Again, this is all about Will's ego, and nothing more.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:28 am
Posts: 7213
Nomad wrote:
How hilarious!

Metcalfe bets a wrinkled ten dollar bill, which Schryver then sees and raises to a thousand dollars--and then is characterized as "chickening out."

Only in the Mormon Discussions Wonderland can such things occur.

lol!


Because anyone with two brain cells to rub together (a requirement that apparently puts you out of the running) is able to see this for what it is: Will chickened out.

Indeed, it is only in the Fantasyland of Mega-Dittos Nomad that Will's obvious desperation is turned into "raising the stakes."

Here's what really "raising the stakes" would look like:

Pretend Will wrote:
OK, Brent, you're on! But I want this debate to take place this weekend, and I want FAIR to run the podcast, since I don't think many good Mormons will listen to John's podcast. FAIR will then make the podcast available on their website. Deal? Obviously, since I have recently presented on this topic and have an article coming out very soon, I am confident that I can wipe the floor with you. May the best man (me) win!

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:54 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
Quote:
After that article is published, Mr. Metcalfe must publish, within a reasonably short period of time (in a journal of his choice) an article rebutting my arguments and evidence as presented in my previously published article.


LOL! What in the world does it matter if Brent publishes an article anywhere and more to the point, Will wants him to publish an article rebutting his argument? WT... Will can't just debate a few points but insists the debate is about the presentation? (roll eyes smiley here).

Quote:
Following the publication of the Metcalfe article, a mutually acceptable moderator will be selected, and arrangements made for a public debate of the merits of the opposing viewpoints, in a mutually acceptable venue, such as a Sunstone or FAIR conference. The debate will be limited to the arguments previously presented in the published articles.


Ha, ha, ha. :-) Yeah, put the debate out a year and limit the argument to Will's presentation.

LOL!

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6203
WIlbur responds to Larsen:

Quote:
No offense intended, John, but I am not willing to "play for peanuts" when it comes to these things.

Brent Metcalfe has never formally committed himself to any set of arguments concerning the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I obviously have. In order to "debate," there must necessarily be two established positions to be debated. There is now, in the form of my summary presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference, at least an outline of my position. I have therefore assumed the role of the "affirmative" interlocutor. I will greatly elaborate on those arguments in my forthcoming published article, at which point Mr. Metcalfe (and the general public) will be able to consider those detailed arguments and accompanying evidence, and then, for the first time ever, publish his counter-position on the issues.

After the publication of these competing views, we will finally be in a position to consider the merits of those views, at which point in time a formal public debate will be appropriate. I am confident that the public interest in these things warrants the formal debate format I have proposed. Such a format is best adapted to an elucidation of the respective viewpoints, and will permit a substantial audience to consider the conflicting arguments. I would expect that the debate could be both recorded and simultaneously webcast in order that interested parties worldwide will be enabled to participate in the proceedings.

I very much look forward to Mr. Metcalfe's acceptance of my "offer" to engage him in this public debate concerning the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.


Play for peanuts? What exactly is Will saying here, that this is about what he receives in return? Gee, isn't that this what we've all been saying? Will only cares about what's in it for him, nothing more. He's an attention hound. But I'm hoping his reverse psychology doesn't work and Brent goes through with all his dumb demands.

Will says it is necessary that Brent first publish his views, but why is this so? He already knows what Brent plans to argue, so what is he afraid of? Will just wants to be able to examine Brent's argument, get help from smarter individuals (which, let's face it, Will doesn't do much research on his own - even the prized piece of evidence he used in his presentation was something he culled from Chris Smith's paper) to better develop his presentation. But is what Will says is true about Brent's untenable positions and "deficiencies" as he describes them, then he should be anxious to take advantage of the situation.

No, Will is scared and he has very good reason to be scared because his history with Brent has been rather embarrassing for him and FAIR.

This nonsense about the sake of a huge "public interest" is dumb because the majority of those wanting this debate are people on the internet. So let's keep it on internet. This should be about the sake of truth, not the quality of "peanuts" that Will receives in return.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:08 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
Quote:
I am confident that the public interest in these things warrants the formal debate format I have proposed. Such a format is best adapted to an elucidation of the respective viewpoints, and will permit a substantial audience to consider the conflicting arguments. I would expect that the debate could be both recorded and simultaneously webcast in order that interested parties worldwide will be enabled to participate in the proceedings.


Public interest? Worldwide?

How many people the world over have even heard of the Book of Abraham? How many Mormons even know of the issues and problems associated with it? How many have heard of Will's argument? LOL!

Some apologists, a handful of hobbyists, and a few dozen interested critics are about the only ones in the world who know about this Book of Abraham topic let alone are interested in hearing a debate!

This is not a presidential election! ;-)

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:16 pm
Posts: 2861
Location: Unassigned Lands
Public debates are a poor way to resolve complex issues because there isn't time for careful examination and response. For the sake of fuller understanding of the two sides, it would be better to debate in print exchange, like a blog, journal, or even the Pundits forum. On the other hand, since Will is a thespian, I would think he would have an advantage in a dynamic public exchange -- much like a charismatic EV preacher stomping an evolutionary biologist even though the preacher's creationist arguments suck.

But Will wants to pass up his tactical advantage and play "pretend" academic instead -- I think that is foolish of him.

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:28 am
Posts: 7213
Kevin Graham wrote:
Play for peanuts? What exactly is Will saying here, that this is about what he receives in return? Gee, isn't that this what we've all been saying? Will only cares about what's in it for him, nothing more. He's an attention hound. But I'm hoping his reverse psychology doesn't work and Brent goes through with all his dumb demands.


It sounds to me like he has let his friendship with Royal Skousen go to his head. Listen, as we have seen from the various LDS podcasts around, scholars of much greater stature than Will are happy to take the opportunity to share what they know with just about any small audience that will give them a chance to trot out their wares.

The real issue, obviously, is that he is intimidated by the thought of debating someone. Debating is really quite a different kettle of fish than presenting at a conference or publishing an article. Often, it is not about who is right so much as who is better at debating. I don't blame Will for balking at a debate. Frankly, I wouldn't want to debate Metcalfe or Vogel publicly.

Who knows but that if I had put myself out there like Will and acquired a fawning follower like Nomad that my little minion wouldn't have suggested I debate Vogel after my Sunstone paper? Man, I would not have wanted to step into that minefield. And that would not have been about my lack of confidence in my paper so much as my lack of confidence as a live debater. Unfortunately for Will, he has cultivated a little minion in Nomad, who suggested this crap, and instead of diverting, Will felt obliged to puff out his chest and act eager to do it, thinking, of course, that Brent would never bite.

But he was wrong, and now he has to find a way of getting out of it, or massaging the terms in such a way that he has a better chance of success or, at least, avoiding embarrassment. And frankly, I don't blame him. If I were in his position, I would do exactly the same thing. I am no better than Will except in perhaps this one way: I am not cultivating the type of wing-nut fans who would put me up to such nonsense.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:21 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:28 am
Posts: 7213
The Dude wrote:
Will is a thespian, I would think he would have an advantage in a dynamic public exchange -- much like a charismatic EV preacher stomping an evolutionary biologist even though the preacher's creationist arguments suck.

But Will wants to pass up his tactical advantage and play "pretend" academic instead -- I think that is foolish of him.


You may be off here. It could be that this is the reason why Will wants a live venue instead of a podcast. He wants to be in a place where he has better "presence" and a crowd packed with his boosters. That would give him more leverage than John's podcast.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:27 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
As amazing as Will thinks he is, I'm pretty sure Will knows that in a live debate, in a public forum, even on stage, Brent has the clear advantage!

;-)

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:28 am
Posts: 7213
truth dancer wrote:
As amazing as Will thinks he is, I'm pretty sure Will knows that in a live debate, in a public forum, even on stage, Brent has the clear advantage!


I have never been one to trust in what Will thinks he knows. I do trust that he has a giant ego.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 5754
Hello,

It is clear Mr. Schryver isn't as confident in his knowledge of the KEP and BofA as he would belie. People who are truly well-versed in their perspective discipline don't have a problem debating it. They're confident in their knowledge and grasp of the subject.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

_________________
http://www.strategycenter.net/doclib/20080107_coughlin_extremistjihad.pdf

www.cesletter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:10 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18169
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Kevin Graham wrote:
The parameters of the debate will conform, in structure, to the long-established Lincoln/Douglas debating format, and according to the following time limits for each speech:

•Schryver Affirmative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes

•Metcalfe cross-examination of Schryver – 10 minutes

•10 minute break

•Metcalfe Negative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes

•Schryver cross-examination of Metcalfe – 10 minutes

•10 minute break

•Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes

•Metcalfe Negative Rebuttal – 30 minutes

•Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes

A total of 3 hours.


This is one rebuttal short for Brent.

I understand the kind of panic that produced this outline, though. To actually have to stand up in public and talk about this nonsense as... well... truth is pretty frightening. And even worse, to be recorded in a podcast, when all your fluttering and sputtering is captured forever. And debate isn't a team sport.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 37  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Analytics, Bazooka, DrW, Google [Bot], neworder, robuchan and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group