Evangelicals turn to debating ...

[TomJoe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/

[Adora]

All the training in the world means squat if their arguments are still a load of hocus-pocus bullshit.

[Ari]

Oh grande, they are training kids to shotgun arguments and to ignore the other side.
If they wanted to learn that why not just go to Hovind U.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ari

Oh grande, they are training kids to shotgun arguments and to ignore the other side.

Now, if Harvard were #1 in the debate rankings, and Liberty were #14, would you say the same thing about the Harvard debaters?

[Ari]

If Harvard taught shotgunning, yep.
Of course in a timed debate getting out 10 good arguments is better than getting out 5 good arguments, however they mention students citing Pat Robertson as a credible source, so it seems closer to shotgunning than a fast delivery of a good argument.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ari

If Harvard taught shotgunning, yep.
Of course in a timed debate getting out 10 good arguments is better than getting out 5 good arguments, however they mention students citing Pat Robertson as a credible source, so it seems closer to shotgunning than a fast delivery of a good argument.

So? Even the Harvard debate coach said they were extremely good (and they proceeded to lose to Liberty). One instance of a spurious source and you're ready to call it shotgunning? Don't you think debates take this sort of stuff into account?

[erimir]

Doesn't change the fact that their arguments (w/regards to religion, I dunno about the less partisan political ones) are BS and the whole plan of infiltrating the government in order to enforce their morality through the American law system is sinister.

And I generally don't respect spoken debate as much as focused, written argumentation. There's too much opportunity for sophistry.

Not to mention that I'm not as good at spoken debate as I am at written ones

[Ari]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

So? Even the Harvard debate coach said they were extremely good (and they proceeded to lose to Liberty). One instance of a spurious source and you're ready to call it shotgunning? Don't you think debates take this sort of stuff into account?

I never said they were horrible debaters, I'm sure they are extremely good to win so much. In competitive debate the goal is to see who is the better debater not find the truth. Shotgunning is a valid debating technique. However I dislike it in the real world because it is a way to win a debate but not to find the truth.

As Erimir pointed out their plan of breeding christian lawyers is not only sinister but if it relies on debate tactics/tricks and not truth it is almost unchristian.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I've only seen two of the movies up for anything, and they were the only two movies I saw last year. Harry Potter and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Geez, when I was in LA I saw a movie every weekend.

I need to get out more.

Last year's Oscar party was fun.

[Miss Shelby]

That's a good article.

Michelle

[freemonkey]

That's some scary stuff.

But here's some funny shit from the article, too:

Karl Rove was impressed enough by the squad that he tapped Liberty coach Brett O'Donnell to prep George W. Bush for all three presidential debates in 2004. O'Donnell briefed the president on his nonverbal tics. "They didn't listen to me until after the debacle," says O'Donnell, of Bush's awkward first debate performance.

and this

Correction: In the original version of this report, NEWSWEEK misquoted Falwell as referring to "assault ministry." In fact, Falwell was referring to "a salt ministry"—a reference to Matthew 5:13, where Jesus says "Ye are the salt of the earth." We regret the error.

[TomJoe]

erimir and Ari,

Funny. Take a kid who passionate about what they believe, and wants to change the world for the better, and they're idealists. However, once that passion is revealed to be Christianity ... they're sinister. Interesting.

So, was Newdow sinister when he used his daughter to attempt to change the Pledge of Allegiance? Is Newdow sinister now that he's formed his church and is attempting to get "In God We Trust" off money?

[Ari]

Um, maybe you shouldn't read as much into things as you seem to be.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Funny. Take a kid who passionate about what they believe, and wants to change the world for the better, and they're idealists. However, once that passion is revealed to be Christianity ... they're sinister. Interesting.

Show me where I have called anyone who wanted to change the world "for the better" and idealist. Show me where I've called all christians who wanted to "change the world for the better" sinister.

I really don't think Liberty U wants to change the world "for the better" IMHO. It does seem sinister to try and raise a bunch of kids who "know how to argue" to use debating tactics to shove religion into government.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

So, was Newdow sinister when he used his daughter to attempt to change the Pledge of Allegiance? Is Newdow sinister now that he's formed his church and is attempting to get "In God We Trust" off money?

I don't think it was sinister of newdow to fight for his daughter. What was sinister of Newdow was that it appeared to be an attempt to fight his wife through his daughter and the courts.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

'Twas a glitch. I moved the post to the Oscar thread where it belongs.

[D. Scarlatti]

What I don't get is the connection between this style of debating and practicing law. I think that's just another Falwellian delusion of grandeur. If they're learning how to think quickly on their feet, that's certainly an asset to a trial lawyer, but they're not necessarily going to be scoring points for Christian Reconstructionism, but rather being in a better position to make and address timely objections.

So really what they should be doing is discarding the Bible and boning up on the rules of evidence and civil procedure, none of which you're going to find in the Good Book. As someone mentioned, Dr. Dino wins "debates" all the time too, but he'd get his ass handed him in court.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Funny. Take a kid who passionate about what they believe, and wants to change the world for the better, and they're idealists. However, once that passion is revealed to be Christianity ... they're sinister. Interesting.

For one, I'm writing this from a perspective of someone who believes in a strict separation of church and state. I don't know if you do or not.

They want to mold the world to their personal religious beliefs.

If their passion was atheism it would be hard for them to try to enforce their beliefs through law, since atheism doesn't entail very much. To the extent that it does, it would be sinister if they were trying to make atheism mandatory, suppress churches, etc.

Do you think it would be sinister if they were Muslims doing the same thing who wanted to make "modest dress" mandatory for women? Or make keeping hallal dietary restrictions mandatory? etc. - Try to insert Muslim values into American law to force their religious values on the whole country?

I'm sure they don't see it as sinister, and think they're doing what's good for the country. But their passion isn't just Christianity, their passion is 1. fundamentalist Christianity (which I have little reservations about criticizing), 2. about breaking down the separation of church and state, 3. enforcing their beliefs through law (ID, denying gays rights, making abortion illegal, etc.). I don't have a problem with them because they're Christian, but because of those things. You need not oppose church-state separation to be Christian.

And I have absolutely no reservations about saying that I consider theocracy, and working towards one (whether or not it is the end goal), to be sinister.

So, was Newdow sinister when he used his daughter to attempt to change the Pledge of Allegiance? Is Newdow sinister now that he's formed his church and is attempting to get "In God We Trust" off money?

That's trying to remove religious expression that is pushed on everybody, not trying to push his own beliefs.

The equivalent thing would be trying to replace "In God We Trust" with "There Is No God".

So, no, I don't find it sinister (if we just look at the idea behind removing those things).

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

So? Even the Harvard debate coach said they were extremely good (and they proceeded to lose to Liberty). One instance of a spurious source and you're ready to call it shotgunning? Don't you think debates take this sort of stuff into account?

The difference here is the same difference we observe between (a) marketing and (b) research. Points awarded for presentation, as opposed to a search for the facts.