Debate Tomorrow

[Apologiaphoenix]

The debate is up! http://themindrenewed.com/episodes/587-ep014

[Heero Yuy]

How I (poorly) see it.

Allow me to kick that doubt to the curb for you.

Humphreys is nothing but a big mouth full of hot air. He will be lucky to escape with his teeth against Nick, since I already took his skin.

I see the debate more like this (there is blood, sorry):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDD9SkF3Ea8

Holding, your the guy with the cross, Anderson. Humphrys is the guy with red eyes.

I'm the other person.

Pretty sure you both kicked each other good. You got him on lack of doubling in the historical work (the clever forgery thesis being hard to prove or disprove), he got you for the massive amount of forgery in Christianity plus not supporting your thesis (in debate rather than on your website where you do).

You both were kicking and punching and throwing balls of energy at each other. It was like chuck norris roundhouse vs chuck norris roundhouse.

The folks at Free Thought Nation* have some good thoughts about the debate, (like the fact that the same historical work, Tacitus, mentions Hercules as if he is a historical character).

laughs maniacally.

*(likely you will call them No thought nation or Free and not worth the price thought nation or other unrepeatable terms)

[Heero Yuy]

The following site has a good summary of the annihilation view:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/ma...ht-to-nothing/

Particularly this section:

What about Satan, the one who initially caused all the misery that mankind has experienced? Revelation 20:7-15 provides the answer. In a final test of all perfect humans, Satan will be permitted to try to mislead them. The Devil and those who follow his lead will be eliminated everlastingly in “the second death.” (Rev. 21:8) Because those within its grasp will be forever out of existence, this death will never be brought to nothing. “The second death” is, however, no enemy of humans who love and serve their Creator.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Got a reference for Hercules in Tacitus where you think he says he's historical?

[jpholding]

, he got you for the massive amount of forgery in Christianity plus not supporting your thesis (in debate rather than on your website where you do).

The folks at Free Thought Nation* have some good thoughts about the debate, (like the fact that the same historical work, Tacitus, mentions Hercules as if he is a historical character).

l

Excellent testimony to your manifest stupidity. The forgery argument is fallacious guilt by association and stereotyping. Tacitus mentions Hercules only as a figure to whom legend was attached, which is pretty useless for Hump's "no Jesus of any kind existed" nonsense. That you think such an argument valid only indicates that your stupidity is particularly incorrigible. Any chance you can explain why Ronald Syme is not a better source than an online forum full of wackos?

[jpholding]

Or merely understanding the empirical lack of evidence for the existence of either Heaven or Hell; let alone the Christian god.

Um, no, that's a different topic. You switched from objecting to hell's nature as described in the Bible to empirical evidence for said hell. Don't play babyish games of bait and switch to cover your inability.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I finally got a chance to listen through the whole debate! I was certainly entertained. Thanks, Nick, and good job!

Just a few quick notes, which I intend in the spirit of constructive criticism:

1. Gotcha Questioning - There were a number of questions which you presented during the Cross Exam portion of the debate which seemed to be designed more towards presenting your own view than towards elucidating that of Humphreys. The host also noted these, during the exchange, but I just wanted to point them out, since these sorts of "Gotcha" questions tend to be less helpful to one's case than many people assume. You would likely have been better off sticking to asking questions directly about his position than in questioning his general knowledge of NT academia.

2. Gish Gallup - You had a tendency to jump very quickly from one talking point to another, overloading both Humphreys and the audience with information that really couldn't be fully explored during the debate. You might have been better served locking onto a smaller set of points in order to better explore them, and to really show the inconsistencies in Humphreys' position.

3. Citation versus Argument from Authority - You are quite well-read, and that fact is perfectly obvious from the discussion. However, there can be a fine line between citing an author's views on a subject and putting forth an Argument from Authority fallacy. During the course of a public debate, like this, it can be very difficult for someone in the audience to discern into which of these categories a claim falls. For example, I have no doubt that you have read and understood Bauckham, and that you find his arguments convincing; however, your citation of Bauckham's position is accompanied by only the barest discussion of his reasoning behind that position. Now, I completely understand that it can be difficult to explore such concepts given the time constraints of a debate, but I think that the audience would be better served by the reasoning (ie, "X, Y, and Z evidence give us good reasons to think that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses") than by the citation (ie, "Richard Bauckham has claimed that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses").


All that being said, overall I think you did a fine job, and (big surprise, here) I found your position to be far better supported than that of Humphreys. Thanks, again, for taking the time to engage in and share this debate!

[Adrift]

3. Citation versus Argument from Authority - You are quite well-read, and that fact is perfectly obvious from the discussion. However, there can be a fine line between citing an author's views on a subject and putting forth an Argument from Authority fallacy. During the course of a public debate, like this, it can be very difficult for someone in the audience to discern into which of these categories a claim falls. For example, I have no doubt that you have read and understood Bauckham, and that you find his arguments convincing; however, your citation of Bauckham's position is accompanied by only the barest discussion of his reasoning behind that position. Now, I completely understand that it can be difficult to explore such concepts given the time constraints of a debate, but I think that the audience would be better served by the reasoning (ie, "X, Y, and Z evidence give us good reasons to think that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses") than by the citation (ie, "Richard Bauckham has claimed that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses").

Are you sure that's what an Argument from Authority fallacy is? I was under the impression that the fallacy is committed when the person being cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject under discussion.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Thanks BP. It did seem difficult that one aspect of the debate was we were jumping around everywhere. Looking back, there are many things I think I could have done better, but then I think it would take a fool to hear himself back in a debate and say "Nah. I did everything just right. No room for improvement." As you know, my father-in-law is a professional debater and he does the same thing I'm sure.

I find it amusing that the biggest argument on YouTube against me seems to have been "His voice is funny." Some have said I was using the same arguments refuted years ago. It would have been nice had Ken refuted them then.

Anyway, I do have Ken's newest book here and after I finish Did God Really Command Genocide? I plan on going through it. Who knows? I could write my own Ebook in response to be an extra thorn in Ken's side.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Are you sure that's what an Argument from Authority fallacy is? I was under the impression that the fallacy is committed when the person being cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject under discussion.

An Argument from Authority fallacy is when you claim that something is true because an authority (whether a valid authority or otherwise) believes it to be true.

Take the following syllogism, for example:
1. Max Tegmark is a leading authority on Cosmology.
2. Max Tegmark believes that the whole of reality is a mathematical object.
3. Therefore, the whole of reality is a mathematical object.

Premise 1 is true-- Max Tegmark is an extremely well-credentialed and respected Cosmologist. Premise 2 is also true-- Tegmark has written a rather fascinating book dedicated to expounding upon this claim. However, the Conclusion in 3 is not necessarily true. Authority or not, the fact that Tegmark believes a proposition has no bearing on that proposition's veracity. The conclusion presented in this syllogism commits the Argument from Authority fallacy.

Now, Nick wasn't committing this fallacy in the debate-- as I mentioned, I completely believe that Nick is aware of Bauckham's reasoning and is convinced by it. However, if I had not been familiar with Nick and his work prior to the debate, it would have been extremely difficult to come to that same determination based solely on the content of the debate.

[KingsGambit]

I finally got a chance to listen through the whole debate! I was certainly entertained. Thanks, Nick, and good job!

Just a few quick notes, which I intend in the spirit of constructive criticism:

1. Gotcha Questioning - There were a number of questions which you presented during the Cross Exam portion of the debate which seemed to be designed more towards presenting your own view than towards elucidating that of Humphreys. The host also noted these, during the exchange, but I just wanted to point them out, since these sorts of "Gotcha" questions tend to be less helpful to one's case than many people assume. You would likely have been better off sticking to asking questions directly about his position than in questioning his general knowledge of NT academia.

2. Gish Gallup - You had a tendency to jump very quickly from one talking point to another, overloading both Humphreys and the audience with information that really couldn't be fully explored during the debate. You might have been better served locking onto a smaller set of points in order to better explore them, and to really show the inconsistencies in Humphreys' position.

3. Citation versus Argument from Authority - You are quite well-read, and that fact is perfectly obvious from the discussion. However, there can be a fine line between citing an author's views on a subject and putting forth an Argument from Authority fallacy. During the course of a public debate, like this, it can be very difficult for someone in the audience to discern into which of these categories a claim falls. For example, I have no doubt that you have read and understood Bauckham, and that you find his arguments convincing; however, your citation of Bauckham's position is accompanied by only the barest discussion of his reasoning behind that position. Now, I completely understand that it can be difficult to explore such concepts given the time constraints of a debate, but I think that the audience would be better served by the reasoning (ie, "X, Y, and Z evidence give us good reasons to think that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses") than by the citation (ie, "Richard Bauckham has claimed that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses").


All that being said, overall I think you did a fine job, and (big surprise, here) I found your position to be far better supported than that of Humphreys. Thanks, again, for taking the time to engage in and share this debate!

Way back in high school, I was into competitive debate. One of the tactics that we were encouraged to use was, in fact, what is referred to as Gish galloping. Of course, we didn't call it that; we called it "spreading". In retrospect, I think it's unfortunate that such a tactic is encouraged in debate as while it does lead to cheap ballot points, it doesn't lead to a competitive debate with lots of clash, and certainly doesn't teach good debating schools.