What Wins a Debate?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by John of Japan, Nov 25, 2010.
?
-
Yes, abrasiveness helps win a debate.
6.5% -
Abrasiveness neither helps nor harms your cause.
9.7% -
No, abrasiveness harms your position in a debate.
61.3% -
I don't know.
3.2% -
Other
19.4%
Page 4 of 6
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporterwebdog said: ↑I don't have a dog in this fight...but to annoy or cause ill will or be overly aggressive is not being rude? Isn't it synonymous? ;) :laugh:Click to expand...
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑No, I think it is rudeness by definition. It think you are right about that. But
there is rudeness that is not wrong and there is rudeness that is wrong.
It was not wrong for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal.Click to expand...
I am absolutely flabbergasted that you think that Jesus was NEVER harsh and rough". I am astounded that you think that. I thought of you as a greater student of the Scriptures than that.
You don;t think it was harsh when Jesus said- "Woe unto you you serpents, you whited sepulchers, you maker of proselytes two fold the children of hell, you children of the devil, etc, etc, etc..."???Click to expand...
The thing is, in English semantics the word "abrasive" has a completely negative connotation. (You can take my word for it--I was an English minor and have worked professionally as a proof reader, book editor and English teacher and consultant.:type:) No one wants to be called abrasive, as the poll on this thread proves (well, except you apparently:smilewinkgrin:). Your original mistake was clinging to the word "abrasive" when you should have gone with your instincts (I assume) and gone with some other word. -
John of Japan said: ↑Luke2427 said: ↑I agree completely.
Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He was telling them their factual situation, and discerning their hearts as their Judge, not making silly insults. At any rate, that passage was certainly not describing a debateClick to expand...
Who said ANYTHING about silly insults?? Who said anything AT ALL about insults???
They were facts. Absolutely. And those facts were harsh and rough.
And so it is in debate. We are pursuing facts and we do not concern ourselves with how sugary sweet they may be. We want facts just as they are.
If someone is full of bologna- it is a fact that deserves pointing out regardless of how rough and harsh it may be.
The thing is, in English semantics the word "abrasive" has a completely negative connotation. (You can take my word for it--I was an English minor and have worked professionally as a proof reader, book editor and English teacher and consultant.:type:) No one wants to be called abrasive, as the poll on this thread proves (well, except you apparently:smilewinkgrin:).Click to expand...Click to expand...
Now, you purported that Jesus and Paul did not debate and that they were not "abrasive". Are you ready to commit yourself to yield WHEN I prove that you are wrong?Click to expand...Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑You chose "abrasive" not I. I recognized the stigma that comes with the word- a stigma you have tried to use against me. I stated clearly at the beginning that I prefer the terms frank and blunt. But abrasive does work just fine in its original form. Jesus was harsh and rough at times and often. So were just about every single one of the prophets and patriarchs and apostles.Click to expand...
Now, you purported that Jesus and Paul did not debate and that they were not "abrasive".Click to expand...
Are you ready to commit yourself to yield WHEN I prove that you are wrong?Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Um, you did vote for abrasive on the poll....:saint:Click to expand...
I do not advocate that, necessarily and I prefer the terms bluntness and frankness as I have said a dozen times on this thread.
Wrong. I said that Jesus did not debate, and I said that neither one was abrasive.Click to expand...
When I do that, we will submit it to Dr. Bob or someone of like character and brilliance and see if the argument holds water. If it does- you will start a thread titled- "I was wrong; Luke was right" where you will post the findings.
Sound good?Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑Then here is what I am going to do. I am going to present an exegetical grammatical argument that Jesus did debate and that Jesus and Paul were at times "harsh and rough".
When I do that, we will submit it to Dr. Bob or someone of like character and brilliance and see if the argument holds water. If it does- you will start a thread titled- "I was wrong; Luke was right" where you will post the findings.
Sound good?Click to expand...
I have to go to our evening service.Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Luke2427 said: ↑Sure, I'll agree. But choose the judge ahead of time, not after the fact. And it must be someone qualified in the original languages. If Dr. Bob is, fine. And of course I get a rebuttal. And perhaps the whole thing should be on another thread, start to finish. And you should apologize to me if the judge rules in my favor.
I have to go to our evening service.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑Then here is what I am going to do. I am going to present an exegetical grammatical argument that Jesus did debate and that Jesus and Paul were at times "harsh and rough".Click to expand...
お休みなさい。 (Oyasumi nasai, "Rest well.")Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Luke2427 said: ↑Part of this snuck by me. You are once again backing off from the term "abrasive." Now I agreed to this as it stands, and I'll stand by my word. But surely it is obvious to you (because of your own words here) that the term "abrasive" (not to mention the action) is always negative, and should never be used for Christ. You'd never get a judge on the BB to give you the nod if you used "abrasive for Christ." And perhaps you made a mistake by voting for it in the poll.... :smilewinkgrin:
お休みなさい。 (Oyasumi nasai, "Rest well.")Click to expand...
First of all the word:
de·bate
/dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3.
deliberation; consideration.
4.
Archaic . strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6.
to participate in a formal debate.
7.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8.
Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9.
to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13.
Archaic . to contend for or over.Click to expand...
So this is how we should define debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:
Next, the term:
a·bra·sive
/əˈbreɪsɪv, -zɪv/ Show Spelled[uh-brey-siv, -ziv] Show IPA
–noun
1.
any material or substance used for grinding, polishing, etc., as emery, pumice, or sandpaper.
–adjective
2.
tending to abrade; causing abrasion; abrading.
3.
tending to annoy or cause ill will; overly aggressive: an abrasive personality.
Use abrasive in a Sentence
See images of abrasive
Search abrasive on the Web
Origin:
1870–75; < L abrās ( us ) ( see abrasion) + -ive
—Related forms
a·bra·sive·ly, adverb
a·bra·sive·ness, noun
un·a·bra·sive, adjective
un·a·bra·sive·ly, adverb
—Synonyms
2. harsh, rough, rasping.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source
|
Link To abrasive
Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
Related Words for : abrasive
abradant, abrasive material, scratchy, harsh
View more related words »
Great Lakes Minerals, LLC
BFA and Bauxite Sales Refractory and Abrasive Markets
www.GreatLakesMinerals.com
Crushed Glass Abrasive
Sandblast grit, clean, safe, fast APC Equipment & Supply Co.
www.crushedglass.us
World English Dictionary
abrasive (əˈbreɪsɪv) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. a substance or material such as sandpaper, pumice, or emery, used for cleaning, grinding, smoothing, or polishing
— adj
2. causing abrasion; grating; rough
3. irritating in manner or personality; causing tension or annoyance
a'brasiveness
— n
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Word Origin & History
abrasive
1853, n., "an abrasive substance," from L. abrasus , pp. of abradere (see abrasion); the adj. is attested from 1875; fig. sense of "tending to provoke anger" is first recorded 1925.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
Medical Dictionary
1 abra·sive definition
Pronunciation: /ə-ˈbrā-siv, -ziv/
Function: adj
: tending to abrade abrasive substance>
abra·sive·ness Function: n
2 abrasive definition
Function: n
: a substance (as emery or pumice) used for abrading, smoothing, or polishing called also abradant
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
abrasive a·bra·sive (ə-brā'sĭv, -zĭv)
adj.
Causing abrasion. n.
A material used to produce abrasion.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This SourceClick to expand...
That is the common use of the term.
In fact that is also the original use of the term according to the etymology of the word.
abrasive (n.) Look up abrasive at Dictionary.com
1853, "an abrasive substance," from L. abras-, pp. stem of abradere (see abrasion) + -ive. The adjective is attested from 1875; figurative sense of "tending to provoke anger" is first recorded 1925. Related: Abrasively; abrasiveness.Click to expand...abrasion Look up abrasion at Dictionary.com
1650s, from M.L. abrasionem (nom. abrasio) "a scraping," noun of action from pp. stem of L. abradere "to scrape away, shave off," from ab- "off" (see ab-) + radere "to scrape" (see raze).
dermabrasion Look up dermabrasion at Dictionary.com
1954; see derma + abrasion.
abrade Look up abrade at Dictionary.com
1670s, from L. abradere "to scrape off" (see abrasion). Related: Abraded; abrading.Click to expand...
The question at hand is- Did Christ ever debate (a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints) and were both Christ and Paul ever abrasive (harsh and rough tending to abrade and irritate and provoke anger)?
I am going to, using the most common definitions of the terms- debate and abrasion- and used in their most common ways, prove that Jesus did debate and that Jesus and Paul were at times abrasive.
This is what you agreed to. Certainly you did not agree to use the words in uncommon or your own pet ways?Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑The first thing we must do is settle on some definitions.Click to expand...
I like to take the first definition given because it best represents the most common use of the term.
So this is how we should define debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:Click to expand...
And the method of interpretation is to be the grammatical-historical method. Agreed?
Next, the term:
I contend that the common use of the term is "roughness and harshness". Webster's Collegiate 1974 edition says "tending to abrade: causing irritation"
That is the common use of the term.Click to expand...
In fact that is also the original use of the term according to the etymology of the word.Click to expand...
We are not interested in connotations be they negative or positive. We are interested in facts.Click to expand...
The question at hand is- Did Christ ever debate (a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints) and were both Christ and Paul ever abrasiveClick to expand...
(harsh and rough tending to abrade and irritate and provoke anger)?Click to expand...
I am going to, using the most common definitions of the terms- debate and abrasion- and used in their most common ways, prove that Jesus did debate and that Jesus and Paul were at times abrasive.
This is what you agreed to. Certainly you did not agree to use the words in uncommon or your own pet ways?Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Agreed.
Agreed.
And the method of interpretation is to be the grammatical-historical method. Agreed?Click to expand...
Please clarify. We need a clear definition from a dictionary, as you gave for "debate." I'm unclear here as to what your definition is. Are you suggesting your understanding of the common use of the word, or the partial definition from Websters? Or something else?Click to expand...
Etymology is unacceptable in any discussion of semantics. (See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 26-32, or David Alan Black in Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, pp. 121-123.) The sole exception for the sake of our discussion would be a hapax legomena.Click to expand...
It certainly is not unacceptable in any discussion concerning semantics since semantics concerns words and their meanings and the earliest use of the word has the most to do with that. Words have concrete meanings, albeit they may have several concrete meanings. What we are trying to do is agree on what concrete definition we are going to go with in this "debate"
BTW, isn't this fun?:smilewinkgrin:
I reserve the right to discuss the meaning of words based on the norms of the society in question as per skopos theory.
I accept this as the proposition, as far as this.Click to expand...
But here you've apparently invented your own definition. Please give a dictionary definition we both can agree on.Click to expand...
As long as you agree that we're using grammatical-historical interpretation. In addition, it's up to the judge to decide if my semantics is "uncommon" or in my "own pet ways," as you quaintly put it--not you.Click to expand...
This really is fun for me- I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am- seriously- I really hope this is fun for you.Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Agreed.
Etymology is unacceptable in any discussion of semantics. (See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 26-32, or David Alan Black in Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, pp. 121-123.) The sole exception for the sake of our discussion would be a hapax legomena.Click to expand...
So we need to know what those two words mean before we embark on a debate.
When you said that Jesus never "debated" and that he nor Paul were ever "abrasive" you were not speaking New Testament Greek. It was English. So we want to know, at this point what the English terms debate and abrasive mean.
Once that is settled we can go to the New Testament and see if Jesus and Paul ever conducted themselves in a manner that meets the English definition of the English word- abrasive. And we can see if Jesus ever embarked on anything that meets the English definition of the English word- debate.
Now in the process we will be using the historical-grammatical method to uncover exegetically and contextually, of course, what exactly passages we look at prove along these lines.
But for now we just want to come together on what "debate" and "abrasive" means. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑It is the first definition. I thought I put it in bold, but perhaps I forgot.Click to expand...
abrasive (e-brâ´sîv, -zîv) adjective
1. Causing abrasion.
2. Harsh and rough in manner.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Agreed?
It certainly is not unacceptable in any discussion concerning semantics since semantics concerns words and their meanings and the earliest use of the word has the most to do with that. Words have concrete meanings, albeit they may have several concrete meanings. What we are trying to do is agree on what concrete definition we are going to go with in this "debate"Click to expand...
No. Unacceptable. Words have meanings. You nor I get to say that just because we have always heard a word used this way that that is the way it should be used. That's silly. The only thing that makes sense is to go with a common usage as shown in a dictionary.Click to expand...
I suspect that what you are doing is rejecting tools I use as a linguist and translator without even knowing what they are! :rolleyes:
This really is fun for me- I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am- seriously- I really hope this is fun for you.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑We are not talking about New Testament words yet. We are talking about two english words: debate and abrasive. It is your contention that Jesus never debated and that neither he nor Paul were ever abrasive.
So we need to know what those two words mean before we embark on a debate.Click to expand...
When you said that Jesus never "debated" and that he nor Paul were ever "abrasive" you were not speaking New Testament Greek. It was English. So we want to know, at this point what the English terms debate and abrasive mean.Click to expand...
Once that is settled we can go to the New Testament and see if Jesus and Paul ever conducted themselves in a manner that meets the English definition of the English word- abrasive. And we can see if Jesus ever embarked on anything that meets the English definition of the English word- debate.Click to expand...
Now in the process we will be using the historical-grammatical method to uncover exegetically and contextually, of course, what exactly passages we look at prove along these lines.Click to expand... -
John of Japan said: ↑Luke2427 said: ↑Okay.
abrasive (e-brâ´sîv, -zîv) adjective
1. Causing abrasion.
2. Harsh and rough in manner.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Agreed?Click to expand...
I am going to be contending that Jesus was at times "harsh and rough" in manner.
Um, so which part of skopos theory and "norms" are you disagreeing with? Do you disagree with Christine Nord's insights? How about polysystem theory and its view of norms? Do you object to that? What about communication theory? Are insights allowed from code theory or relevance theory?I suspect that what you are doing is rejecting tools I use as a linguist and translator without even knowing what they are! :rolleyes:Click to expand...
Son, it's my job. I deal with semantics every day of my life in English and Japanese, and Greek weekly, on Fridays and Saturdays in particular (sometimes Chinese or Latin).Click to expand...Click to expand...Click to expand... -
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
When It Comes to Members of the BB . . .
John of Japan said: ↑Luke and I have a running disagreement about what wins a debate. Specifically, he believes that being abrasive is a help in winning a debate.
Here is what I said wins a debate in one thread:
What say ye?Click to expand...
I came to a Christian forum to find loving support, and loving disagreement. Not name calling, and insults. Character Assassination takes place a lot of times, when love needs to be applied in disagreement with another member.
There are many posts that I could address in a negative way, but I choose to ignore the post, and leave it lay where I found it.
If more members would practice this by the name of Jesus, and not defend their abrasive attacks as the standards of debate, there be more people on the board.
This is just my opinion, and the truth is, I expect some criticism for my opinion, but I can only hope the criticism is in the form of love, and be non-abrasive.
It's okay to disagree. . . It's not okay to tear the other person apart in front of our cyber neighbors! If you come across something that looks like it is easy to tear apart and rip up, if you can't do it without attacking the other person, then leave the 'dead dog in the road' and drive on by.
Shalom,
Pastor Paul :type: -
righteousdude2 said: ↑This is an interesting question, John. I believe that being non-abrasive is important. I can't tell you how many time's members of this forum have pushed me to the point of anger with their "ABRASIVE" replies.
I came to a Christian forum to find loving support, and loving disagreement. Not name calling, and insults. Character A takes place a lot of times, when love needs to be applied in disagreement with another member.
There are many posts that I could address in a negative way, but I choose to ignore the post, and leave it lay where I found it.
If more members would practice this by the name of Jesus, and not defend their abrasive attacks as the standards of debate, there be more people on the board.
This is just my opinion, and the truth is, I expect some criticism for my opinion, but I can only hope the criticism is in the form of love, and be non-abrasive.
It's okay to disagree. . . It's not okay to tear the other person apart in front of our cyber neighbors! If you come across something that looks like it is easy to tear apart and rip up, if you can't do it without attacking the other person, then leave the 'dead dog in the road' and drive on by.
Shalom,
Pastor Paul :type:Click to expand...
Amen and well said Righteousdude.
No one is going to win this debate.
They've argued back and forth. Neither is going to covince the other.
It's quite ugly.
:jesus: -
righteousdude2 said: ↑This is an interesting question, John. I believe that being non-abrasive is important. I can't tell you how many time's members of this forum have pushed me to the point of anger with their "ABRASIVE" replies.
I came to a Christian forum to find loving support, and loving disagreement. Not name calling, and insults. Character A takes place a lot of times, when love needs to be applied in disagreement with another member.
There are many posts that I could address in a negative way, but I choose to ignore the post, and leave it lay where I found it.
If more members would practice this by the name of Jesus, and not defend their abrasive attacks as the standards of debate, there be more people on the board.
This is just my opinion, and the truth is, I expect some criticism for my opinion, but I can only hope the criticism is in the form of love, and be non-abrasive.
It's okay to disagree. . . It's not okay to tear the other person apart in front of our cyber neighbors! If you come across something that looks like it is easy to tear apart and rip up, if you can't do it without attacking the other person, then leave the 'dead dog in the road' and drive on by.
Shalom,
Pastor Paul :type:Click to expand...
They are not opposing the idea I put to you that prompted you to start this thread that debate is about testing the metal of our ideas.
They are not opposing the idea that debate means you throw your ideas to the lions and if those ideas do not render the lions toothless- if the lions are able to consume those ideas- then the lions have done you a great favor. Now you can go and get better ideas- stronger ones.
Debate is not fellowship. Debate can and should be friendly and should be conducted in a Christian manner with the goal of uncovering truth at the center.
Fellowship is meant for encouragement and strengthening one another. Debate is meant to test ideas.
Both are wonderful if they are allowed to accomplish what they are SUPPOSED to accomplish. -
preacher4truth said: ↑Amen and well said Righteousdude.
No one is going to win this debate.
They've argued back and forth. Neither is going to covince the other.
It's quite ugly.
:jesus:Click to expand...
Men can oppose one another without it being "ugly".
Page 4 of 6