Originally posted by rwingettI was going to mention it, but i figured that it would be thrown out on the pretext that they would not let there personal feelings interfere with their judgments, that they would remain impartial and objective, which i have no reason to dismiss, however, if i was a defendant being tried for theistic inclinations and practices in front of an atheistic jury, i would have cause for concern, would i not, but so be it, i have no other grounds on which to call into question the validity of the debate!
The composition of the jurors was agreed to by both participants. The time for that sort of complaint would have been before the debate started, not after.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo be honest, I think most of the judges disagreed with the initial position of rwingett, so if anybody could have a reason to be afraid of impartiality problems is him.
I was going to mention it, but i figured that it would be thrown out on the pretext that they would not let there personal feelings interfere with their judgments, that they would remain impartial and objective, which i have no reason to dismiss, however, if i was a defendant being tried for theistic inclinations and practices in front of an atheisti ...[text shortened]... but so be it, i have no other grounds on which to call into question the validity of the debate!
Edit - I apologize for being so slow, but I underestimated the time I'd need to do this properly.
Ok, after finally reviewing both texts, here is my evaluation and some comments on each point. My opinion seems to mirror LemonJello's points on most issues, so I'll be more precise about the things I felt he didn't discuss and just highlight the main differences on the other ones.
First of all, let me state that my opinion before the debate was that Jesus was NOT a socialist. That opinion hasn't changed (surprise, surprise!) but I would still like to thank both participants for giving me much food for thought.
- Form (10 points)
A landslide. Rwingett wrote very clearly and with a very good structure. The text was easy to separate into sections, and arguments were followed by evidence systematically. To cap that, he was brief and to the point, something I personally treasure.
On the other hand, jaywill wrote very chaotically, as if assembling his thoughts as he wrote. He went from one point to another and back again without a clear path and made his post hard to follow, which required several readings required. The overall length was, in my opinion, a byproduct of his structure and so were his repeated arguments. Very poor and almost embarassingly so, considering this was not (or shouldn't have been) written "on-the-fly".
Rwingett 9 : Jaywill 1
- Discussion (10 points)
Here I disagree with LJ. I think the fact that jaywill hammered heavily on several misconstruals of rw's position was detrimental for the discussion and I also didn't appreciate that jaywill many times used the "piecemeal" style that participants were asked not to use (see rules). On the other hand, rw second post addressed the most frequent objections but, in my opinion, didn't address the most relevant ones. This is partially jw's fault (for not making his most relevant objections also his most frequent ones) but points were docked for not addressing them anyway.
RW 5 : JW 2
- Evidence.
I think both did a decent job in presenting evidence for their arguments. Although I initially gave rwingett a better mark here, upon a more thorough examination I realized that most of the difference came from the form(see above) and not from actual support of the argument. Moreover, the scope of rwingett's evidential support seemed to be wider in his first post, but his second was relatively poorer. Overall, I can't think of a clear winner here so I give it as a tie with good marks.
RW 7 : JW 7
- Content
Here again LJ's comments are very close to my own opinion, especially regarding his analysis of rwingett's posts. There are some important differences, though. I think jaywill's insistence on the importance of the living resurrected presence could actually have been a powerful argument but, in my opinion, he failed to communicate it properly. The argument would be that the goals of "material equality, justice and brotherhood" would arise through God's OIKONOMIA regardless of the economic system or political institutions. In that sense, I (personally) don't think any meaningful definition of socialism would still apply to Jesus under that perspective. This very important qualifier (the "regardless" part) was briefly hinted in several passages by jaywill, but in the end I was not convinced that this was the main thrust of the argument or even an important. He seemed to insist on the OIKONOMIA leading to manifestations of socialism or socialism itself and, in that sense, the argument seems weak or even supporting rwingett's hypothesis. Nevertheless, doubt was raised but I felt not enough to undermine RW's main argument.
RW 14 : JW 12
Final score: RW 35 : JW 22
And my vote goes then to rwingett. Well done!
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, I can take up rwingett's thesis any minute -his two posts against my two texts that I posted at this thread, without the slightest change, and with as many judges as he wants (the judges will be choosen solely by him and I will accept his proposal in full).
I just wanted to add that being a judge is easy, so please take any of my "criticisms" as from a coward who didn't want to take rwingett up on this one.
rwingett, in case you agree with my idea (afterall we will just sit patiently waiting for the judges of your choise to bring up their verdict), please go ahead my friend🙂
PS: As a matter of fact, regardless Zahlanzi's opinion, rwingett is the winner of this debate. Way to go, rwingett!
So rwingett my friend,
In case you accept my challenge, it is obvious that my thesis is consistent of the two post of mine at this thread: my first post (the last post on page 2 of this thread) must be taken as my answer to your opening post as is; the second part of my thesis are the five first paragraphs of my second post (the first post on page 3 of this thread), and these five paragraphs must be taken as my answer to your closing text as is.
It's all up to you now, here wait.-
😵
***********VICTORY!!!!************
I wish to thank the judges for helping me prove beyond any possible doubt that Jesus was a socialist. By at least a 3 to 2 vote the truth has been clearly recognized and can henceforth be carved in stone. Fact: Jesus was a socialist. Every Christian denomination will now be required to alter their dogma to conform with this ironclad and irrefutable fact.
This thread can now be thrown open to public discussion, although there doesn't seem to be much point to it anymore. Since the facts have been conclusively and concretely established, further discussion would seem to be a moot point. Why beat a dead horse? But I suppose we can indulge those whose tenuous grasp of reality leaves them ill prepared to deal with a more factually grounded understanding of Jesus.
Originally posted by rwingettIf you want to know the meaning of life, the universe and everything, I can tell you now it's not 42.
[b]***********VICTORY!!!!************
I wish to thank the judges for helping me prove beyond any possible doubt that Jesus was a socialist. By at least a 3 to 2 vote the truth has been clearly recognized and can henceforth be carved in stone. Fact: Jesus was a socialist. Every Christian denomination will now be required to alter their dogma to confor ...[text shortened]... reality leaves them ill prepared to deal with a more factually grounded understanding of Jesus.[/b]
But we just need a vote between me, black beetle, trev33, zahlanzi and LemonJello to pin down The Truth.
