C
Cat
Guest
In the past, debates were a form of entertainment. In her book, Little Town on the Prairie, Laura Ingalls Wilder describes a debate: RESOLVED–that Lincoln was a better man than Washington.
There was no rancor or personal attack, merely the exchange of points (arguments), and a winner would be declared. Often the winner was not necessarily “right,” but the winner was the better debater.
I read a biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder that describes a debate she participated in when she grew up. Apparently, she was a last-minute substitute for a man, and she beat the pants off her opponent with her knowledge of history and clear presentation of facts.
I’ve read that G.K. Chesterton often engaged in debate with those who opposed Christianity, yet all involved remained good friends throughout the debate and afterward.
Many high schools still field “Debate Teams,” and they learn to argue point and counterpoint. A good debater should be able to argue either side of an issue.
IMO, a debate should still have this purpose–educational entertainment. The “winner” should be the one who presents the facts clearly and offers evidence that supports his/her conclusion. And there WILL be an element of entertainment as the debaters try to capture not only the brains, but the hearts of the audience by using clever words, amusing illustrations, and pathos.
There shouldn’t be anything personal. Those involved SHOULD be good friends, not enemies. Perhaps THAT is the problem with some of the Protestant/Catholic debates–the debaters wouldn’t dream of going out to dinner and a movie together afterward, or inviting each other to their house. To just bandy words about is not educational entertainment–it’s war. No wonder it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Christians should not be at war with each other.
And that’s one reason I suggested R.C. Sproul–he is a gentleman, and I think that he would be willing, as are many of the Reformed in the U.S., to practice Christian love and hospitality with any Catholic debate opponent. To me, this kind of debate would be wonderful, because I would know that the debaters were pals away from the podium.
There was no rancor or personal attack, merely the exchange of points (arguments), and a winner would be declared. Often the winner was not necessarily “right,” but the winner was the better debater.
I read a biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder that describes a debate she participated in when she grew up. Apparently, she was a last-minute substitute for a man, and she beat the pants off her opponent with her knowledge of history and clear presentation of facts.
I’ve read that G.K. Chesterton often engaged in debate with those who opposed Christianity, yet all involved remained good friends throughout the debate and afterward.
Many high schools still field “Debate Teams,” and they learn to argue point and counterpoint. A good debater should be able to argue either side of an issue.
IMO, a debate should still have this purpose–educational entertainment. The “winner” should be the one who presents the facts clearly and offers evidence that supports his/her conclusion. And there WILL be an element of entertainment as the debaters try to capture not only the brains, but the hearts of the audience by using clever words, amusing illustrations, and pathos.
There shouldn’t be anything personal. Those involved SHOULD be good friends, not enemies. Perhaps THAT is the problem with some of the Protestant/Catholic debates–the debaters wouldn’t dream of going out to dinner and a movie together afterward, or inviting each other to their house. To just bandy words about is not educational entertainment–it’s war. No wonder it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Christians should not be at war with each other.
And that’s one reason I suggested R.C. Sproul–he is a gentleman, and I think that he would be willing, as are many of the Reformed in the U.S., to practice Christian love and hospitality with any Catholic debate opponent. To me, this kind of debate would be wonderful, because I would know that the debaters were pals away from the podium.
