But that's not what you did. You made a specific truth claim:

<Big Pawn:

<<<tga>>> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative.>

I challenged you to bring evidence to back up your truth claim.

You didn't, because you can't, because your statement is a lie.

You posted extensively but not clearly. Look, after a month of posting, last I looked, you and <Ocf> were arguing about what the point of the whole discussion was. One of you is saying it was about <one point> and the other was saying <who said that?> and on and on and on.

That's not the proof of a clearly stated position lols.

We will come back to all of this soon, but only after you and <optimal play> cool off and I'm serious about that. This is not just a throwaway debate about politics or Obama or Trump or whatever. In those debates, mudslinging galore doesn't really hurt the debate, because it's not important.

In a debate about God's existence, it's another story. The <central points> must be supported and <then> the merciless smackdown and the enjoyment of it is okay, and even the merciless exposing of the opponent's character (showing he's a coward, afraid to engage, trying to run away - all of that is important when dealing with atheists because they <ought> to be punished for their arrogance).

But in a debate about salvation, the gospel and rightly dividing the word of truth among people who <call themselves Christians>, this is the wrong approach entirely. It is not only inappropriate, but it is not profitable as far as debating goes and the value of the ideas being expressed.

Who do I consider the audience for such a debate? The Lurking Christian Reader. The Christian or wannabe Christian who doesn't know the answers to the lame questions and challenges that atheists commonly put to them. My debates there were meant to give confidence and strengthen the faith of lurking Christians.

I simply <used> the arrogant, godless libs as one uses a whore, but in an intellectual sense. I wanted the Lurking Christian to see:

1. That there are great answers for the exceedingly lame questions and challenges that atheists post to Christians in debate.

2. I wanted to smash the arrogant atheists and shatter their egos by bringing great injury to their pride.

3. I wanted to glorify God by humbling the prideful, because "Pride comes before a fall."

I wanted to show the Lurking Christian that there's nothing to be afraid of and what happens when you stand up to these libs. I wanted them to see how an unbearably arrogant atheist lib reacts to being thoroughly dominated and humbled. They go from licking their chops thinking they will embarrass another unprepared Christian to begging for mercy, "Can't we just discuss this? Why does it have to be a debate? You're only interested in winning. BOOHOOHOOHOOHOO!"

Hence my effective choice of style.

A debate between people <who call themselves> Christians is entirely different. The audience is different too, in that it's the people I am debating that are my intended audience. That is, it's my opponents who I am trying to influence, not just some Lurking Reader.

Therefore, an entirely different protocol is necessary for persuasion to obtain. I won't waste my time in a noisy forum, or with people posting as if they are drinking, or with unhinged, angry, over-emotional opponents, because it's the wrong environment.

Also, it proves that it's worthless to debate such people anyways.

Why?

Because if they are acting like that, being overly-emotional, then they are in an <emotional state>, and no one in an <emotional state> can respond to reason and logic.

Try reasoning to your overly emotional wife or girlfriend and see how that works out.

Try reasoning with your buddy who's been drinking and is now in an overly-emotional state.

Worse yet is when one is <right> and proves himself <right> when the other is in an overly-emotional state.

Consider:

Two brothers are waiting for mom to finish dinner and they're outside playing.

Tommy: We're having leftover spaghetti tonight.

Jimmy: No we're not, we finished the spaghetti.

Tommy: No we didn't, mom said she was giving it to us tonight again.

Jimmy: I had the last of it earlier today. It's gone. Trust me.

Tommy: It's not gone, we're having it tonight.

Jimmy: No we're not.

Tommy: Yes we are.

Jimmy: Do you enjoy being an idiot? We're not having it tonight.

Tommy: I saw here heating it up 5 minutes ago.

Jimmy: DO YOU ENJOY BEING WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME? YOU'RE AN IDIOT! YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN AN IDIOT.

Tommy: Relax bro, you're unhinged.

Jimmy: NO YOU RELAX. I WON THIS DEBATE. DUMBASS!

Mom: Come on in kids, your leftover spaghetti is on the table! Time to eat!

Let us ask the Elite Posters: Is Jimmy happy that he's learned the truth? Is he happy that his brother tried to reason with him because he knew the truth?

No. Jimmy is even angrier now and says,

Jimmy: I'M NOT HUNGRY!

You can't reason or bring truth to an overly emotional person and expect him to respond the right way.

First of all, you complained about "too much noise" as an excuse for discontinuing your discussion with Ohio, then you embarked on a mindless rant involving a litany of calumnies against the Catholic Church which were completely without basis and were nothing more than regurgitated protestant fundamentalist propaganda from a hundred years ago.

My initial response discredited your nonsense which then elicited from you a further outpouring of vituperation against Christ's Church.

It was like a madman's rant not worthy of any response other than outright condemnation.

You talk about a debate between Christians as being entirely different from "smashing the arrogant atheists", yet when I effectively pointed this out to you, you replied "I didn't come here to be treated with kid gloves ..." showing that you're only interested in rolling around in the mud rather than high-level discussion.

Look, I understand fully that you know you can't win any debate about the Bible or Catholicism because of your fundamentally flawed theology, and as such you immediately turn a contest according to the Marquess of Queensberry Rules into a back-alley brawl.

One can only imagine what non-believers must think when they read your comments.

Anyway, I hope you take the opportunity to review your recent comments and reflect upon your poor performance on the Non-PC Free Speech Zone and commit to improving the quality of your posts in the future.

When are have come down from that emotional ledge you are perched on and can do as I do, which is stick to the topic and the <central points>, at the top of Graham's Hierarchy, then it will be a good time to pick up where we left off.

Same goes for <tga>.

It's a waste of time to try to reason with you guys when you're in an overly emotional state.

And no, I do not take responsibility for the way you and <tga> mishandled your emotional state.

You guys have to learn how to accept disagreement without getting angry because once you get angry, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you.

If you don't want to be at the top of Graham's Hierarchy when debating amongst yourselves, then so be it. It's merely a guideline for the <Free Speech Zone> and not a hard rule.

However, <if> you want to debate me on a serious subject on this forum, then you need to be prepared to post consistently at the top of Graham's Hierarchy in every post and throughout every post. If you don't value such a debate with me, no hard feelings.

You can debate each other on your level.

Let the Lurking Libs also come out of hiding (yes, this means YOU!) and try their hand in the <Free Speech Zone>.

This forum might be a little more comfortable for the libs, now that the level of debate has gone down a notch or two.

Libs, if you want to debate me, be prepared to back up all of your statements. Be prepared to post high-level remarks, at the top of Graham's Hierarchy. Don't write anything that you don't think you can back up, because I will call you on all of it.

If you want an easier debate where chaos and confusion, noise and disorder, slander and quarreling are acceptable, then you'll need to debate the others on this page.

Protestant: YOU Catholics believe your Pope is infallible!

Catholic: That must be understood in context. Papal infallibility only applies when the Pope, alone or with the College of Bishops, speaks "ex cathedra", that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. It does not allow for new doctrines and must be "conformable with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions".

Protestant: I scanned your answer and saw the words pope, authority and doctrine and that's as far as I got. It took me maybe 4 seconds to see that at a scrolling, scanning glance. It's a waste of time to try to debate with you when you're in this overly emotional state. When you have come down from that emotional ledge you are perched on and can stick to the topic and the central point at the top of Graham's Hierarchy, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

Catholic: Ummm ... I'm pretty sure I'm on topic and answering your inquiry directly, clearly and calmly. I'll just add that Scriptural authority for papal infallibility can be found in the numerous New Testament references to Peter as first among the apostles, in particular Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-19. Also Luke 10:16 and John 14: 16-17,26 among others. Furthermore, this authority of the pope goes back to Pope Clement I in the first century in a letter to the Church in Corinth.

Protestant: Are you drinking and posting? You're way out of line. Your tone is terrible for this subject matter. None of this rises to the top of Graham's Hierarchy, so it can be dismissed as nothing more than you venting your frustration.

Catholic: I understand your rejection of papal infallibility stems from your view of the Church. You do not think Christ established a visible church, and so you do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. However the New Testament shows the apostles setting up a visible organisation, not distributing bibles for everyone to read and decide for themselves.

you're upset about your inability to deal with my arguments, so it's time for you to take a little break.... Settle down and cool off... right now you’re upset, calling names and such>>>

You forgot the part about the noise:

<<tga> and <optimal> play are making too much noise...

You posted extensively but not clearly.>

Bearing false witness is a violation of one of the 10 commandments. Don't worry, I follow Jesus' teachings, so I have already forgiven you. Also I will do as instructed in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:28, and pray for you (pray for those who persecute you).

But my concern is in relation to <God>'s forgiveness, not mine. For God's forgiveness, you must repent of your sin.

Bearing false witness is about perjury, not you being upset because you didn’t like my take on your argument.

My question above is rhetorical, no need to respond since I’m not going to invest time into a debate with you at this point, given your high emotional state and inability to stick to the <central points > rather than abandoning them in favor of venting your emotions via personal attacks.

The rule is, in the <Free Speech Zone (Non-PC)> is if you fail to respond to a debate post at the top levels of Grahams Hierarchy, then you forfeit the debate right there and then.

So if we include anything that you s less than top level in our posts, it’s a loss.

I will post this to the bio section.

You got to earn your forgiveness by repenting? >

You think repenting is a <work>? OMG. Wow. You are in deep deep trouble, my friend.

You desperately need to pay attention to the teachings of the NT. You are grievously lacking understanding.

<Bearing false witness is about perjury>

So if we include anything that you s> (sic) <less than top level in our posts, it’s a loss.

I will post this to the bio section.>

I get it. You are embarrassed about dropping the point to me previously:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5800)

So, definitely change the rules! That way, you can claim you didn't drop any points.

Reminds me of NASCAR, changing rules in mid-season, which they have done before.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5810)

This was really a top-notch post by <op>. It hearkened back to a 1970s movie, <Westworld>. Specifically, this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rw...

In the role of Yul Brynner, <BP> tries to bully <op>. However, <op>, in the role of Richard Benjamin, guns down <BP> in a fight that is quite one-sided. Brynner never even gets a shot off, while Benjamin riddles him with bullets.

< You desperately need to pay attention to the teachings of the NT. You are grievously lacking understanding.>

I can appreciate you responding but this is a throwaway remark that has no value in terms of being persuasive, convincing, enlightening, teachable, discerning or anything.

And this is an immediate example of why I said that we aren’t ready to resume debating, which is a shame because not only are debates enlightening and profitable for the participants and onlookers, but they’re also fun.

I think debates are fun.

Please note the new rule for top level FSZ debates. It’s in the bio.

Of course, low level debates are still allowed here, but I won’t participate in them on this esteemed forum.

<optimal play>, please note the new rule for top level debates in the FSZ.

OK, <Boy George>, I will refute this here and now:

"Grace" <is a <requirement> for your salvation>. Yet it is not a "good work". It is a gift from God.

<If you find the word <<<work>>> to be unhelpful then just call it a requirement (a rose by any other name...).>

Heh heh. "Grace" is a requirement, but try working out "Grace" on your own...

<<<<You desperately need to pay attention to the teachings of the NT. You are grievously lacking understanding.>>>

I can appreciate you responding but this is a throwaway remark that has no value in terms of being persuasive, convincing, enlightening, teachable, discerning or anything.>

Ok, <George>/<BP>, whomever you are. But as long as you keep asking questions like these: <You got to earn your forgiveness by repenting?>, then my assertion stands unanswered.

<And this is an immediate example of why I said that we aren’t ready to resume debating>

Correct. Before we can resume debate, you need to learn the difference between <repentance> and <good works>. <op> is fairly astute in theology. Why not ask him the difference?

<not only are debates enlightening and profitable for the participants and onlookers, but they’re also fun.

I think debates are fun.>

We finally agree on something. That's good to know.

<Please note the new rule for top level FSZ debates. It’s in the bio.>

<So if we include anything that you s less than top level in our posts, it’s a loss.>

Could I please just get a clarification on what this means: <anything that you s less than top level>?

If <Optimal> gives an argument for Catholicism and I respond, and one part of my response is, "You're an idiot!" then you and the rest of the board can call me out on it and I lose the debate, because it's a clear violation.

<Stifling debate>

Not at all because I clearly stated that everyone is encouraged to debate at their own level. These rules are only for TOP-LEVEL debates.

For instance, if we desire to have a no nonsense, top-level debate, one that will produce high quality content and zero filler, then one poster can challenge another to this kind of debate in this forum, and the rules are made plain for everyone to see.

<...you're precluding the possibility of either side belatedly recognizing that they did indeed fail to address a central point, and moving upward and onward in response.>

Perhaps, but if one is not equipped to engage in such a debate, then one should debate on a different level. I'm aiming for at least some debates to be more formal, more concise, more substantive and with zero filler or nonsense, and I do mean zero.

<Arbitrary>

There is nothing arbitrary about this because the requirement to meet the top two levels of Graham's Hierarchy are about the quality of response, and quality is not arbitrary.

<coming to a clearer understanding of the other side's position>

You can do that by asking a question, sure, that's allowed of course, but if you couple that with a personal insult or if you vent your frustration with flat out contradictions and nothing to back them up (like posting <wrong!> over and over), then you forfeit the debate.

The idea is to generate unusually substantive, hard hitting, high level debates that give us insight with clarity.

On a personal level, these are the kinds of debates I want to participate in and get the most enjoyment from.

Another problem we have is that the debates are too long and everything gets lost in the mix. They start to wander all over the place until they have no value anymore, but I didn't address this with the new rule.

Answering <wrong!> five times in a row with no supporting argument is on the <contradiction> level of Graham's Hierarchy, which is a low quality response.

Inserting, "You're an idiot!" is a rock bottom level response on Graham's Hierarchy.

"You're a liar!" is not addressing the point either and it's a bottom level (DH0) response on the hierarchy.

The best way I can think of to eliminate these childish responses is to have them cost the debate, in a formal sense, by making rules about them, but only for TOP-LEVEL debates.

I will be open only to TOP-LEVEL debates. If no one wants to debate me, that's okay, I'm busy anyhow, only taking a few minutes here and there for some light fun on other pages.

However, if someone wants to have a serious debate with me, and they consider themselves an Elite Poster, then we are going to exhibit championship level stuff here.

On a final note, if for some reason the rules prove impractical, which I don't think they will, then we can make common sense adjustments to them.

I can moderate a debate between two other people better than anyone else on the planet. Hands down.

In a training-wheels kind of high level debate, I, as the moderator, could warn a participant if they didn't respond to the <central point> or if they didn't <identify the mistake> in the opponent's post (level DH6 and DH5) and give them another chance, say, maybe three chances in the whole debate, and then forfeit them if they continue.

That way it's not just once and you're out.

However, if you just once resort to ad hominem or plain contradiction (i.e. <Wrong!>) then you forfeit immediately, no matter what.

Furthermore, in a real debate, there should be an agreed-on topic before the debate starts and the purpose of the debate should be clear.

"I am going to defend the proposition x,y.z..."

The opponent: "And I will show that x,y,z is not true..."

Yes, such formalities are not to everyone's taste, and to those people I say go and enjoy a debate on your own level and forget all about this stuff.