Saturday, July 03, 2010

Tradition Debate?

In a recent discussion on BeggarsAll - James Swan said:
 "Romanists can tear down sola scriptura, but won't positively defend Tradition in debate."
 To which I responded:

"As for a Catholic being unwilling to take up the debate on tradition, I believe that is wholly false. Now, if the non-Catholic is using that as a response to a Catholic challenge; then the Catholic is quite justified in not answering the diversionary and logically flawed tactic. However, if you wish to debate Catholic tradition on the merits of Catholic tradition, I'll take you up on that challenge! Will you put your money where your mouth is, or will you find some excuse to not debate me on this topic? Let me know and we'll work out the details of the debate format."

Swan replies:

"You want to do an in-person debate on Tradition?"
 I replied:
 "As for debate, I will do a written debate with you online. I would welcome a PORTION of that debate to be a live IRC session. In a written debate it is much easier to stay on task and give fuller and more responsible answers. While I do not wholly dismiss a live, face-to-face debate - it is not the best format as if either of us are caught off-guard by a question there is no time in a live confrontation to research and provide a responsible answer.

What do you propose the question of the debate to be? Or, would you like me to present the question/thesis since on the matter of Catholic tradition, I would be the one holding the affirmative?"
That's where we are, so far. 

I propose an online debate because that enables BOTH of us to answer concisely and accurately as possible.  It permits us to present the TRUTH as we see it, and not end up losing a "debate" but where the "truth" does not come out and/or the "best answer" is not given due to the inability to research a question in a live/in-person confrontation.   Will Mr. Swan follow through with this?  If and when he does, of course, links and/or the debate itself will be posted here (and I'm sure at a site and/or blog of his choosing).

Stay tuned!

6 comments:

  1. In short, I'm not real interested in a "gotcha debate" - whereby one or the other party can claim victory over a technicality when their opponent cannot answer quickly enough in a live setting but may be able to provide a responsible answer in a non-live situation by availing themselves to research. Bottom line, there is a better chance of the TRUTH coming out in a non-live format, not that it can't in a live, face-to-face debate - but a non-live/written debate is more conducive to BOTH sides being able to say exactly what they want to say in response to each question.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I said "stay tuned," and we've made a LITTLE headway to proceed, we'll see...

    >> sw: As for debate, I will do a
    >> written debate with you online.
    >> I would welcome a PORTION of
    >> that debate to be a live IRC
    >> session.
    >
    > JS: As to the later, I don't do
    > IRC debates. If you were to
    > check my #pros stats, you'll
    > find I write very little.

    sw: Well, I wasn't proposing a full out IRC debate - moreso one PHASE of the debate, like a cross-examination section, to be in IRC. I don't frequent IRC myself much anymore myself. I made the offer as a gesture to have a portion of the debate be "live."

    > JS: As to a written debate, I
    > don't completely rule that with
    > you- but based on what you've
    > written so far, I'm not all
    > persuaded it will have any
    > value.

    sw: You brought up the statement of debating me "face to face" - I am just negotiating the terms of this debate - and I prefer a written debate.

    > JS: Even on the entire concept
    > of "debate" as presented in my
    > earlier comment was simply
    > stating a fact that professional
    > Romanist apologists (Hahn,
    > Madrid, Staples, Pacwa, etc.)
    > will not positively defend
    > Tradition as an infallible
    > deposit of faith. You
    > interpreted that to be a
    > challenge to do a written debate
    > with you! LOL. I find that
    > humorous.

    sw: You said no Catholic apologist would respond to a debate on tradition. I said I would do it. That's all. You're twisting this into a bit more than either of us intended.

    > JS: (snip) I'm sure Dr. White
    > would be very interested in
    > doing an in-person debate with
    > the best Rome has to offer. You,
    > Mr. Windsor, are not that
    > person. You are a guy with a
    > blog.

    sw: Well, White "cut his teeth" in debating Catholic in debates with ME! He has attributed his first two books on Catholicism (at least) on debates he had with me. Evidently I was "that person," at least until White either could not or just refused to continue answering my challenges to him.

    >> sw: In a written debate it is
    >> much easier to stay on task and
    >> give fuller and more
    >> responsible answers. While I do
    >> not wholly dismiss a live,
    >> face-to-face debate - it is not
    >> the best format as if either of
    >> us are caught off-guard by a
    >> question there is no time in a
    >> live confrontation to research
    >> and provide a responsible
    >> answer.
    >
    > JS: Hmm, that reminds me of your
    > appearance on the Dividing Line
    > some years back. How have your
    > studies on Augustine been going
    > since then?

    sw: The DL show was about John 6, not St. Augustine. The most significant Augustine discussion I had with White (and King at the same time) they eventually conceded they were wrong - well, King did, I don't know that White ever directly did so though he did admit to posting contradictory information.

    JAGWAB,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  3. More than 6 months have gone by and Swan does not appear to be interested in supporting the challenge he made. I've offered to do a written debate with him. I've offered for part of that debate to be in live IRC (chat). I'll extend that, as I believe he could arrange it, that part of it could be hosted live through James White - although his normal Dividing Line times would not be good for me (I work). So a "special" time would be needed, like after-hours or on a Saturday. Again, I would only agree to PART of this debate to be live - as I would not want to put all my eggs in that basket. If he were able to fluster me or take me off-topic to somewhere I'm wasn't really prepared to discuss - then a live only debate can appear to have been "won" by someone crafty enough - but the "truth" doesn't always "win" in such a situation.

    Of course Mr. Swan would have the same advantages and/or disadvantages as myself. Will he agree to a multi-media debate? Or, will he withdraw his challenge?

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, maybe if I'm "bored" one day, I'll do the debate with you. Keep in mind, I have other interests than simpy "Tradition."

    LOL. Thanks for giving me that line Scott!

    ReplyDelete
  5. JS: Keep in mind, I have other interests than simpy "Tradition."

    Keep in mind, I called you on your challenge. You stated no Catholic would debate you on the topic - if that was a true statement at one time, it no longer is.

    When you're ready, we need to agree upon a suitable thesis statement to use as a premise. I would assume that you would be taking a negative position, so I would "go first" in a debate on Tradition. We would also have to agree to the format of the debate, (round robin, simultaneous posting and responding to each other's previous posting - no first or last with that method - live portion, format of live portion, number of words per section, etc.).

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just an update - Mr. Swan has not yet engaged the debate he challenged no Catholic would accept. I stand ready to debate him, I'm not quite sure where he stands.

    How about it James?

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.