we accept your challenge

ftball4him32
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-09
User is offlineOffline
we accept your challenge

hey everyone.....i go to liberty university. this past wednesday night one of our campus pastors, Ergun Caner, had a message where he talked about and directly to the RRS about the blasphemy challenge. everyone needs to see this video. here is the link...... 

http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/liberty/cpo/campuschurch/20070207_cc_ec.wvx

 

[MOD EDIT: OUR LETTER TO ERGUN CANER.

Our challenge is to speak with us on our show, we can give you the same fairness decried to us in your video. No edits. Furthermore nobody from Liberty has properly contacted us, get us a phone number for Ergun Caner. We will not travel to Liberty, I know Dawkins wont either, maybe call Sam. Brian Flemming has re-issued a challenge to take Caner on one on one in a moderated discussion on our show. Furthermore we would talk with Caner, Falwell, and one more on our show with our whole team. Challenge accepted, now make it happen as if you really want to do this and have the big bosses actually contact us.]


Respect_Truth
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Thank you. Sincerely,A

Thank you.

Sincerely,
A Liberty University Student


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ftball4him32 wrote:

ftball4him32 wrote:

hey everyone.....i go to liberty university. this past wednesday night one of our campus pastors, Ergun Caner, had a message where he talked about and directly to the RRS about the blasphemy challenge. everyone needs to see this video. here is the link......

http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/liberty/cpo/campuschurch/20070207_cc_ec.wvx

 

Did you ask permission from the site owners to post this link. It looks more like sermon. Could it be that you cant stand the limlight being taken from you?

I thought that guy was quite funny trying not to act angry. His voice quiverd and he clinched his fist several times. I am quite sure he is angry and not at Christians like he claimed there.

I think he is lying. I think he is mad because atheists are competing with him and Falwell and the competition to his set norms makes him uncomfortable.

I dont care what he is mad at even if he isnt lying(although I think he was). The more you talk about atheists and RRS the more the truth will come out.

Donkeys and bushes dont talk. Human flesh doesnt magically come from dirt and there is no such thing as spirit dna or spirit sperm. And the earth is billions of years old.

Keep talking about this site. Atheists love to hear that their videos and books make top lists.

I'll take this time to challenge you to read the following.

"Atheism,The Case Against God" 

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkings

"2,000 Years of Disbelief" James Haught.

"Letter To A Christian Nation" Sam Harris 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Oh, well if the bible says

Oh, well if the bible says the bible's true, then I guess that solves everything then, doesn't it?

 

This reminds me of the line in A Beautiful Mind when John Nash asks why he can't solve his own schizophrenia with his brain the way he solves math equations, and his wife replies that it's because his brain is the source of the problem. 


Mordagar
RRS local affiliateSuperfan
Mordagar's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Didn't watch the video as

Didn't watch the video as I'm on dial-up, but I think it is excellent. The point of this exercise is to get people talking, and at Liberty University, it has done just that.

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
If you were truly interested

If you were truly interested in getting the Squad to interact with Liberty, you should have contacted them directly. Use the "Contact" link up top. We did watch your video in the Stickam room. If you are here to dialogue and communicate with the atheist forum community as a theist, we are glad to have you here. I like believers who come here and try to dialogue instead of simply attacking us. Please make sure you are engaged in a conversation with us while you are here. We can respect that

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


weasel7711
Theist
weasel7711's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It looks more like

Quote:
It looks more like sermon.

Oh no, not a sermon! It's someone talking, its not going to kill you if you watch it. 

I sat down for 2 hours and listened to Dawkins ramble on about how God sucks and is vindictive and how everyone who attends liberty university is virtually retarded.

The Voice: It is the Broodwich. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell's half-acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with mayonnaise beaten from the evil eggs of dark chickens force-fed to dogs by the hands of a one-eyed madman. Cheese boiled from t


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
weasel7711

weasel7711 wrote:

Quote:
It looks more like sermon.

Oh no, not a sermon! It's someone talking, its not going to kill you if you watch it.

I sat down for 2 hours and listened to Dawkins ramble on about how God sucks and is vindictive and how everyone who attends liberty university is virtually retarded.

I'm jealous. Dawkins rawks.

And he was right: Enroll in a proper university. 

BTW, Jerry Falwell turned my mother into a religiously insane zealot, so I'm not terribly fond of your university and what it teaches.  

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
weasel7711

weasel7711 wrote:

Quote:
It looks more like sermon.

Oh no, not a sermon! It's someone talking, its not going to kill you if you watch it.

I sat down for 2 hours and listened to Dawkins ramble on about how God sucks and is vindictive and how everyone who attends liberty university is virtually retarded.

A sermon is not a two way debate. Dawkings did allow a question answer period after his speach.

They posted that as a PR move for them.

The teacher didnt contact RRS directly when he could have. That mention of RRS in that sermon was not an aceptance to RRS challenge, it was a rallying cry to sturr up his troops.

Why does an acceptance incoperate a sermon?

All he has to do is say " I want to debate the RRS team".

No need to post a sermon to do that. That was to benifit his followers and students to say, "Dont be afraid of them".

He doesnt want a debate with equality. He wants Brian to go down there so he can be the lamb at slaughter.

I doubt he would get away with the stuff he said in that video here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Respect_Truth
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
For more information go to

For more information go to http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/seminary/index.cfm?PID=6969 or call 434.592.3338 or email ecaner@liberty.edu.


logicaltheist
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I am also a Liberty student

I am also a Liberty student who was there the night of Dr. Caner's talk. This was not a PR move. This was a very fair request to allow him to voice in a logical way why we believe what we do. This was not just going out to RRS. This was to any of the leading Atheists.That is why it was done the way it was.  I do understand why both sides would be hesitant to go on the opposing side's "turf". I hope an agreement can be reached there. I would really love to hear both sides of this. I believe that the questions that people have been asking of Christians are for the most part very fair questions. I would love for Christians to have the opportunity to answer them honestly without a "I just believe it because" attitude. I think you deserve better than that.I don't believe in blind faith.

"an unexamined life is not worth living"

"an unexamined faith is not worth having"


ftball4him32
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-09
User is offlineOffline
i did actually contact the

i did actually contact the squad directly and they said that they will be trying to contact Dr. Caner on monday. i hope everyone realizes that this is not a case of christians attacking the RRS. this is only christians recognizing those legitimate questions that need to be answered. like Dr. Caner said in the video, "blind faith is nothing but faith in faith". our faith is not a blind faith. there are answers to your questions. with time and research i believe every question can be answered. i, personally, am not as knowlegeable as Dr. Caner is on many of these issues and i wouldnt be able to answer them as accurately as he would be able to. i am only trying to get the word out there that there are answers out there and if anyone truly seeks those answers you know who to contact. This is why i think it is important that Dr. Caner is contacted. so that those questions that everyone has can finally be answered. i wish the best to all of you.

-James 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Lol, I watched his sermon

Lol, I watched his sermon and his invitation. I too noticed he clenched his fists and tried not to be mad. If i was not in Hong Kong I would gladly go. He made some reasonable propostions, but it slammed into the fact that he accepted the tenets of christianity as true because the bible says so, and accepted the bible as a rational document. So when the team does go, be sure to slam him on that.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It starts at min 10.30 if

It starts at min 10.30 if some one wanted to skip to the part where he talks about us.


weasel7711
Theist
weasel7711's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I watch him speak all the

I watch him speak all the time. Hes not really angry, its just his passion. He LOVES to argue. You should see how he got when the Calvinists were going to come.

The Voice: It is the Broodwich. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell's half-acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with mayonnaise beaten from the evil eggs of dark chickens force-fed to dogs by the hands of a one-eyed madman. Cheese boiled from t


ftball4him32
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-09
User is offlineOffline
i dont think that he was

i dont think that he was getting angry. that is the way he is everytime he speaks. that is just his demeanor when is on stage. i do agree that it looks like that but i assure you that is not the case.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
weasel7711 wrote: I watch

weasel7711 wrote:
I watch him speak all the time. Hes not really angry, its just his passion. He LOVES to argue. You should see how he got when the Calvinists were going to come.

Yeah, Calvinists make me pretty passionate too.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
We sent a letter to Ergun

We sent a letter to Ergun Caner after he sent us the press release yesterday evening.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Tomcat wrote: If you were

Tomcat wrote:
If you were truly interested in getting the Squad to interact with Liberty, you should have contacted them directly. Use the "Contact" link up top. We did watch your video in the Stickam room. If you are here to dialogue and communicate with the atheist forum community as a theist, we are glad to have you here. I like believers who come here and try to dialogue instead of simply attacking us. Please make sure you are engaged in a conversation with us while you are here. We can respect that

Yep.

Here is what I think is really going on.

Considering Falwell and his history of power mongering now that some group is competing with him. He cant stand it. His organization has also competed with other TV evanglalists. When they relized they couldnt win, he adapted.

Falwell is intrested in one thing and it is not freedom for all citizens. He is intrested in POWER! Thats it!

I think this new turn of events is ovibious that he now realizes that those outside his club are not going to sit back and take it anymore.

SO FALWELL, IF YOU READ THIS, STOP YOUR PREACHING, STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR APOLOGISTS AND FACE US! WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOU! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


logicaltheist
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Caner did say that he will

Caner did say that he will debate with the assumption that the Bible is "an old book". He is going to argue in that way. He made  that promise when he spoke.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
logicaltheist wrote: Caner

logicaltheist wrote:
Caner did say that he will debate with the assumption that the Bible is "an old book". He is going to argue in that way. He made  that promise when he spoke.

Oh no. I hope he doesn't. That will be fatal to the RRS. Eye-wink


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
logicaltheist wrote:Caner

logicaltheist wrote:
Caner did say that he will debate with the assumption that the Bible is "an old book". He is going to argue in that way. He made  that promise when he spoke.

Logical theist, what do you suppose that means?  I'm not sure why he'd even want to have a discussion about religion with anyone that couldn't admit the bible is an old book.  To me it makes me think that he realizes that there are many parts of the bible that are not applicable to society today, if an all knowing God inspired a book one would presume the book would be timeless considering this book says this god is perfect. 

"The Bible is an old book" THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


logicaltheist
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Let me explain what I

Let me explain what I meant. I meant that obviously the Bible could not be brought into this discussion. You cant use the Bible to argue it's own rationality, and what purpose would it serve to use the Bible when no Atheist believes it's true? I do believe that the Bible is infalible, but that's not going to convice anyone without outside arguments. Those are the kind of arguments that Caner intends to use. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe that will help.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle Predicts that Dr

MattShizzle Predicts that Dr Caner is going to get very seriously pwned by the RRS!


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
logicaltheist wrote: Let

logicaltheist wrote:

Let me explain what I meant. I meant that obviously the Bible could not be brought into this discussion. You cant use the Bible to argue it's own rationality, and what purpose would it serve to use the Bible when no Atheist believes it's true? I do believe that the Bible is infalible, but that's not going to convice anyone without outside arguments. Those are the kind of arguments that Caner intends to use. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe that will help.

I'm confused. Caner intends to argue using the Bible, although it wouldn't be convincing to an atheist?


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
I think this is wicked!  I

I think this is wicked!  I liked when he said "you bring your friends, and I'll bring my friends"  Ohhhh snap!  22jesus22 predicts a rumble!

 

But seriously I read Sapients/Hawkins letter and I think that was fair and reasonable.  I really hope at least a discussion between the RRS and Falwell and Caner can take place, though I would obviously love to see people like Harris and Dawkins involved.  


logicaltheist
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
lol, no that's not what I

MrRage,

 lol, no that's not what I said. I said that he IS NOT going to bring the Bible into the discussion. This debate is based only on logic. You can't use the Bible to debate it's own validity.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
logicaltheist

logicaltheist wrote:

MrRage,

lol, no that's not what I said. I said that he IS NOT going to bring the Bible into the discussion. This debate is based only on logic. You can't use the Bible to debate it's own validity.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that's what you meant.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Liberty University is a

Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles.  Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book.  Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins.  They couldn't, naturally.  Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old.  A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Liberty

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles.  Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book.  Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins.  They couldn't, naturally.  Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old.  A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: D-cubed

pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

 

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: If your

pby wrote:

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

 

PBY: don't repeat the lies bud. 

 

The Real #1 Team in College Debate Is...

Category:
Posted on: March 28, 2006 7:18 AM, by Ed Brayton

Not Liberty. For the second time in three years, Michigan State won the collegiate National Debate Tournament championship. After starting the year with a win at the Wake Forest tournament, they had to beat Wake Forest in the finals and they emerged with a 6-1 victory. Congratulations to Will Repko and Mike Eber, the head coach and director of the MSU debate program, and to seniors Ryan Burke and Casey Harrigan. I'll have more later when I return from running some errands this morning.

I can't tell you how proud and pleasantly astonished I am to see how successful Will has become as a college coach. When I first met him he was a sophomore in high school and, frankly, a mediocre debater. I started coaching at Okemos high school and he debated for East Lansing, just a few minutes away. I had debated against his older sister for 4 years in high school. And at that point, Will just wasn't that good at debate.

A mutual friend of ours commented a few months ago that he can't remember ever seeing someone improve so much from the beginning to the end of their senior year in debate and I agreed. In one year, Will went from being a mediocre debater to being one of the best in the state almost instantaneously. His partner was his younger sister, Biza, who would prove to be an even better debater eventually. She went on to be a national champion college debater as well.

After graduation, Will began coaching his old high school in debate and turned them into a powerhouse program almost immediately. A few years later he moved up to the college ranks with MSU and did the same with them. Now MSU is a perennial participant in the late elimination rounds of national tournaments, a two time national champion and Will has once been named Coach of the Year. He has brought Michigan State up to the level of traditionally great debate schools like Harvard and Northwestern.

Incidentally, he also tried his hand at stand up comedy after high school and he could have been very good, but he was too devoted to coaching to put all his energy into it. But he was very, very funny (and he was there the night that I made an audience hate me for wondering aloud when Michael Landon would die without knowing that he had died that morning). And after not speaking to each other for many years, we reunited a couple years ago due to our mutual love of poker (I walked into a poker room and there he was). So in an odd way, we've always had almost identical interests and aptitudes.

After we'd reestablished our friendship, Will told me that he had made a list some years back of the 15 people that had been the biggest influences on his life and that I was on that list. That made me feel very good. I see what he's accomplished now and I feel like an older brother watching his younger brother do everything he did, but about 1000% better. He's an hell of a guy and I couldn't be more proud. Congratulations to Will and to everyone involved in the MSU debate program for their monumental accomplishment.

 

________________ 

 TAKE 3... (I can't find take 2) 

You know, for all of Jerry Falwell's complaining about the "liberal media", he's getting an astonishing amount of credulous and fawning coverage over the completely meaningless fact of the Liberty debate team being ranked #1 in the nation according to a point(less) system. The latest is a long article in the New York Times Magazine, of all places. Mark Twain famously said that there are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is a perfect example.

As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years.

Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120.

When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.

Despite this, they're all over the media claiming to be the best debate team in the country, "higher ranked than Harvard", and the media is lapping it up like a hungry kitten. This is utter nonsense. I don't begrudge them the fact that they focus on giving opportunities to younger kids who never debated in high school. I think that's valuable and laudable and great for those kids. But piling up points that way doesn't make you the best debate team in the nation and going around claiming it does is highly misleading.

In no other competitive activity are the rankings compiled this way. If Tiger Woods spent his time competing in Nike tour events instead of the PGA and dominated at that lower level, he wouldn't be the #1 ranked golfer in the world. When readers see an article declaring that Liberty University is the #1 ranked debate team in the nation, "higher ranked than Harvard", they assume that this means Liberty beats the best teams head to head. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have lots of hard working novices and JV debaters who rack up points for them, but in terms of actual quality competition, Liberty's debate team is positively mediocre. And all the talk of #1 rankings isn't gonna change that fact.

 ____________________

 

Liberty Debate Team, Take 4

Category:
Posted on: March 22, 2006 9:29 AM, by Ed Brayton

For crying out loud, the exaggeration of this nonsense simply will not stop. CBS News has elevated them to having won the national title in this article. Reporter Steve Hartman says, "They just clinched the national title - ahead of Harvard, even." No, no, a thousand times no. They haven't won any national title, they never have and I'd venture to guess that they never will. They are a mediocre college debate team that only manages to pile up a lot of points by going to novice and JV tournaments that most top schools don't bother to go to.

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Damn, if lying is really a

Damn, if lying is really a sin against God, there's gonna be a WHOLE lot of Christians joining us in hell! LOL!!!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Damn, if

MattShizzle wrote:
Damn, if lying is really a sin against God, there's gonna be a WHOLE lot of Christians joining us in hell! LOL!!!

 Oh, Matt.

Don't you understand that lying for the cause of God and Christ isn't REALLY a sin?

Thanks for the info Mr. S. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.  

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: pby

Sapient wrote:
pby wrote:

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

 

PBY: don't repeat the lies bud. 

 

The Real #1 Team in College Debate Is...

Category:
Posted on: March 28, 2006 7:18 AM, by Ed Brayton

Not Liberty. For the second time in three years, Michigan State won the collegiate National Debate Tournament championship. After starting the year with a win at the Wake Forest tournament, they had to beat Wake Forest in the finals and they emerged with a 6-1 victory. Congratulations to Will Repko and Mike Eber, the head coach and director of the MSU debate program, and to seniors Ryan Burke and Casey Harrigan. I'll have more later when I return from running some errands this morning.

I can't tell you how proud and pleasantly astonished I am to see how successful Will has become as a college coach. When I first met him he was a sophomore in high school and, frankly, a mediocre debater. I started coaching at Okemos high school and he debated for East Lansing, just a few minutes away. I had debated against his older sister for 4 years in high school. And at that point, Will just wasn't that good at debate.

A mutual friend of ours commented a few months ago that he can't remember ever seeing someone improve so much from the beginning to the end of their senior year in debate and I agreed. In one year, Will went from being a mediocre debater to being one of the best in the state almost instantaneously. His partner was his younger sister, Biza, who would prove to be an even better debater eventually. She went on to be a national champion college debater as well.

After graduation, Will began coaching his old high school in debate and turned them into a powerhouse program almost immediately. A few years later he moved up to the college ranks with MSU and did the same with them. Now MSU is a perennial participant in the late elimination rounds of national tournaments, a two time national champion and Will has once been named Coach of the Year. He has brought Michigan State up to the level of traditionally great debate schools like Harvard and Northwestern.

Incidentally, he also tried his hand at stand up comedy after high school and he could have been very good, but he was too devoted to coaching to put all his energy into it. But he was very, very funny (and he was there the night that I made an audience hate me for wondering aloud when Michael Landon would die without knowing that he had died that morning). And after not speaking to each other for many years, we reunited a couple years ago due to our mutual love of poker (I walked into a poker room and there he was). So in an odd way, we've always had almost identical interests and aptitudes.

After we'd reestablished our friendship, Will told me that he had made a list some years back of the 15 people that had been the biggest influences on his life and that I was on that list. That made me feel very good. I see what he's accomplished now and I feel like an older brother watching his younger brother do everything he did, but about 1000% better. He's an hell of a guy and I couldn't be more proud. Congratulations to Will and to everyone involved in the MSU debate program for their monumental accomplishment.

 

________________ 

 TAKE 3... (I can't find take 2) 

You know, for all of Jerry Falwell's complaining about the "liberal media", he's getting an astonishing amount of credulous and fawning coverage over the completely meaningless fact of the Liberty debate team being ranked #1 in the nation according to a point(less) system. The latest is a long article in the New York Times Magazine, of all places. Mark Twain famously said that there are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is a perfect example.

As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years.

Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120.

When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.

Despite this, they're all over the media claiming to be the best debate team in the country, "higher ranked than Harvard", and the media is lapping it up like a hungry kitten. This is utter nonsense. I don't begrudge them the fact that they focus on giving opportunities to younger kids who never debated in high school. I think that's valuable and laudable and great for those kids. But piling up points that way doesn't make you the best debate team in the nation and going around claiming it does is highly misleading.

In no other competitive activity are the rankings compiled this way. If Tiger Woods spent his time competing in Nike tour events instead of the PGA and dominated at that lower level, he wouldn't be the #1 ranked golfer in the world. When readers see an article declaring that Liberty University is the #1 ranked debate team in the nation, "higher ranked than Harvard", they assume that this means Liberty beats the best teams head to head. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have lots of hard working novices and JV debaters who rack up points for them, but in terms of actual quality competition, Liberty's debate team is positively mediocre. And all the talk of #1 rankings isn't gonna change that fact.

 ____________________

 

Liberty Debate Team, Take 4

Category:
Posted on: March 22, 2006 9:29 AM, by Ed Brayton

For crying out loud, the exaggeration of this nonsense simply will not stop. CBS News has elevated them to having won the national title in this article. Reporter Steve Hartman says, "They just clinched the national title - ahead of Harvard, even." No, no, a thousand times no. They haven't won any national title, they never have and I'd venture to guess that they never will. They are a mediocre college debate team that only manages to pile up a lot of points by going to novice and JV tournaments that most top schools don't bother to go to.

 

 

 

 

Answer:  No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

As the Feb. 6, 2006 MSNBC article (www.msnbc.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/) points out, LIberty University was ranked No. 1 and Harvard No. 14. Note that the article also points out that Liberty hits many tournaments while the other schools limit it to more prestigious tournaments. It is also noted that Liberty beat Harvard in a debate (see the cited MSNBC article). So their number one ranking is also based on their ability to win the debate...not just in numbers of debate.

Or was Harvard just a more "dumb"?

Their #1 ranking is also based on the established rules and point systems for rankings. If you want to be ranked #1, you obviously have to enter a lot of debates.

Even the Harvard coach says that Liberty is, "tough".

So definitely not lies...

And my original statement stands...they obviously are not "dumb" as alleged.

Does anything you posted prove that they are "dumb" as alleged?

(no.)

 

 


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Damn, if

MattShizzle wrote:
Damn, if lying is really a sin against God, there's gonna be a WHOLE lot of Christians joining us in hell! LOL!!!

Answer:  You are an intellectual giant Mr. Shizzle and every post reveals your ability to be rational (/sarcasm).

 

 


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: Sapient

pby wrote:
Sapient wrote:
pby wrote:

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

PBY: don't repeat the lies bud. 

The Real #1 Team in College Debate Is...

Category:
Posted on: March 28, 2006 7:18 AM, by Ed Brayton

Not Liberty. For the second time in three years, Michigan State won the collegiate National Debate Tournament championship. After starting the year with a win at the Wake Forest tournament, they had to beat Wake Forest in the finals and they emerged with a 6-1 victory. Congratulations to Will Repko and Mike Eber, the head coach and director of the MSU debate program, and to seniors Ryan Burke and Casey Harrigan. I'll have more later when I return from running some errands this morning.

I can't tell you how proud and pleasantly astonished I am to see how successful Will has become as a college coach. When I first met him he was a sophomore in high school and, frankly, a mediocre debater. I started coaching at Okemos high school and he debated for East Lansing, just a few minutes away. I had debated against his older sister for 4 years in high school. And at that point, Will just wasn't that good at debate.

A mutual friend of ours commented a few months ago that he can't remember ever seeing someone improve so much from the beginning to the end of their senior year in debate and I agreed. In one year, Will went from being a mediocre debater to being one of the best in the state almost instantaneously. His partner was his younger sister, Biza, who would prove to be an even better debater eventually. She went on to be a national champion college debater as well.

After graduation, Will began coaching his old high school in debate and turned them into a powerhouse program almost immediately. A few years later he moved up to the college ranks with MSU and did the same with them. Now MSU is a perennial participant in the late elimination rounds of national tournaments, a two time national champion and Will has once been named Coach of the Year. He has brought Michigan State up to the level of traditionally great debate schools like Harvard and Northwestern.

Incidentally, he also tried his hand at stand up comedy after high school and he could have been very good, but he was too devoted to coaching to put all his energy into it. But he was very, very funny (and he was there the night that I made an audience hate me for wondering aloud when Michael Landon would die without knowing that he had died that morning). And after not speaking to each other for many years, we reunited a couple years ago due to our mutual love of poker (I walked into a poker room and there he was). So in an odd way, we've always had almost identical interests and aptitudes.

After we'd reestablished our friendship, Will told me that he had made a list some years back of the 15 people that had been the biggest influences on his life and that I was on that list. That made me feel very good. I see what he's accomplished now and I feel like an older brother watching his younger brother do everything he did, but about 1000% better. He's an hell of a guy and I couldn't be more proud. Congratulations to Will and to everyone involved in the MSU debate program for their monumental accomplishment.

________________ 

 TAKE 3... (I can't find take 2) 

You know, for all of Jerry Falwell's complaining about the "liberal media", he's getting an astonishing amount of credulous and fawning coverage over the completely meaningless fact of the Liberty debate team being ranked #1 in the nation according to a point(less) system. The latest is a long article in the New York Times Magazine, of all places. Mark Twain famously said that there are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is a perfect example.

As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years.

Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120.

When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.

Despite this, they're all over the media claiming to be the best debate team in the country, "higher ranked than Harvard", and the media is lapping it up like a hungry kitten. This is utter nonsense. I don't begrudge them the fact that they focus on giving opportunities to younger kids who never debated in high school. I think that's valuable and laudable and great for those kids. But piling up points that way doesn't make you the best debate team in the nation and going around claiming it does is highly misleading.

In no other competitive activity are the rankings compiled this way. If Tiger Woods spent his time competing in Nike tour events instead of the PGA and dominated at that lower level, he wouldn't be the #1 ranked golfer in the world. When readers see an article declaring that Liberty University is the #1 ranked debate team in the nation, "higher ranked than Harvard", they assume that this means Liberty beats the best teams head to head. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have lots of hard working novices and JV debaters who rack up points for them, but in terms of actual quality competition, Liberty's debate team is positively mediocre. And all the talk of #1 rankings isn't gonna change that fact.

 ____________________

Liberty Debate Team, Take 4

Category:
Posted on: March 22, 2006 9:29 AM, by Ed Brayton

For crying out loud, the exaggeration of this nonsense simply will not stop. CBS News has elevated them to having won the national title in this article. Reporter Steve Hartman says, "They just clinched the national title - ahead of Harvard, even." No, no, a thousand times no. They haven't won any national title, they never have and I'd venture to guess that they never will. They are a mediocre college debate team that only manages to pile up a lot of points by going to novice and JV tournaments that most top schools don't bother to go to.

Answer:  No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

As the Feb. 6, 2006 MSNBC article (www.msnbc.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/) points out, LIberty University was ranked No. 1 and Harvard No. 14. Note that the article also points out that Liberty hits many tournaments while the other schools limit it to more prestigious tournaments. It is also noted that Liberty beat Harvard in a debate (see the cited MSNBC article). So their number one ranking is also based on their ability to win the debate...not just in numbers of debate.

Or was Harvard just a more "dumb"?

Their #1 ranking is also based on the established rules and point systems for rankings. If you want to be ranked #1, you obviously have to enter a lot of debates.

Even the Harvard coach says that Liberty is, "tough".

So definitely not lies...

And my original statement stands...they obviously are not "dumb" as alleged.

Does anything you posted prove that they are "dumb" as alleged?

(no.)

 

Sapient:  Your advice is noted, though. After re-reading my repsonse it was articulated inaccurately and needed more care...next time.

Thanks,


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.

Then again, denying a wealth of scientific information in favor of believing in a 6k year old earth because someone worked through some calculations based on information found in a scientifically inaccurate book is not what I would call bright 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.

Then again, denying a wealth of scientific information in favor of believing in a 6k year old earth because someone worked through some calculations based on information found in a scientifically inaccurate book is not what I would call bright 

Answer:    Your allegation would hold some water if they were not ranked the #1 debate team and if they hadn't beat Harvard (among others).

Obviously, if they do hold to those beliefs that you mentioned (bright by your standards, or not)...It hasn't hurt them in debates.

Also, please cite where the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.

Then again, denying a wealth of scientific information in favor of believing in a 6k year old earth because someone worked through some calculations based on information found in a scientifically inaccurate book is not what I would call bright

Answer: Your allegation would hold some water if they were not ranked the #1 debate team and if they hadn't beat Harvard (among others).

Obviously, if they do hold to those beliefs that you mentioned (bright by your standards, or not)...It hasn't hurt them in debates.

Also, please cite where the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

 

The mainstream press just takes Liberty's word for it and they're not lying. Someone who actually did research on the topic (but isn't in the mainstream media) must be. What's wrong with this picture?

As far as the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible:

Do you believe a bat is a bird? The Bible says so.

Do you believe a rabbit chews its cud? The Bible says so.

Do you believe the earth is a circle as opposed to a sphere? The Bible says its a circle.

Play with these a bit. 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.

Then again, denying a wealth of scientific information in favor of believing in a 6k year old earth because someone worked through some calculations based on information found in a scientifically inaccurate book is not what I would call bright

Answer: Your allegation would hold some water if they were not ranked the #1 debate team and if they hadn't beat Harvard (among others).

Obviously, if they do hold to those beliefs that you mentioned (bright by your standards, or not)...It hasn't hurt them in debates.

Also, please cite where the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

 

The mainstream press just takes Liberty's word for it and they're not lying. Someone who actually did research on the topic (but isn't in the mainstream media) must be. What's wrong with this picture?

As far as the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible:

Do you believe a bat is a bird? The Bible says so.

Do you believe a rabbit chews its cud? The Bible says so.

Do you believe the earth is a circle as opposed to a sphere? The Bible says its a circle.

Play with these a bit. 

 

 

Answer:  Do you not believe the MSNBC article that I cited and posted when it said that Liberty beat Harvard?

Do you not believe the cited MSNBC article when it quotes the Harvard coach saying that Liberty is, "good"?

These alleged not so bright students win debates and are considered "good" by their Ivy League opponents...What can be said?

Please give me the specific Biblical passage for each of the items that you mentioned.

Thanks, 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
Liberty University is a university much like cancer tickles. Richard Dawkins spoke at a nearby women's college concerning his most recent book. Many brainwashed fundies from Liberty "University" attended to try to discredit Dawkins. They couldn't, naturally. Dawkins reprimanded the university for teaching evolution denial at their school and the disproven myth that the universe is only 10,000 years old. A university that dumbs itself down for students still produces dumb students.

If your assertion is true, then please explain how the Liberty University debate team has been the National Debate Champions the last several years. They have beat every school out there, including the Ivy League schools.

Because they teach selectively. Debating skills are necessary to spread the propaganda they are asked to spread. Science, however, isn't.

Debating is about knowledge of the rules of debating, not about what you're debating. Debate teams just read their evidence, They don't necessarily understand it beyond knowing that some of it (the parts they select) supports their position.

Hey jcgadfly,

I agree with you, in part...but obviously that have to know/understand the topic they are debating.

It is also obvious, that these students aren't "dumb" as alleged. You may not agree with them...but they aren't dumb.

To allege that they are dumb is just not rational.

regards,

No it's not obvious that they have to know/understand the topic. Debates are scored on persuasion, speaking ability, organization and how well your evidence supports the topic (to name a few). There is nothing about needing knowledge and understanding of your topic to win a debate. The debater may glean knowledge while going through the evidence but it isn't a requirement.

I never said that they were dumb. They're just select the knowledge they choose to accept using more narrow criteria than others. For me, it's always been interesting to hear Christians talk about how free they are when they have to close off their thought processes to so much.

The poster I responded to said that the Liberty students were "dumb".

Not a rational post.

Then again, denying a wealth of scientific information in favor of believing in a 6k year old earth because someone worked through some calculations based on information found in a scientifically inaccurate book is not what I would call bright

Answer: Your allegation would hold some water if they were not ranked the #1 debate team and if they hadn't beat Harvard (among others).

Obviously, if they do hold to those beliefs that you mentioned (bright by your standards, or not)...It hasn't hurt them in debates.

Also, please cite where the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

 

The mainstream press just takes Liberty's word for it and they're not lying. Someone who actually did research on the topic (but isn't in the mainstream media) must be. What's wrong with this picture?

As far as the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible:

Do you believe a bat is a bird? The Bible says so.

Do you believe a rabbit chews its cud? The Bible says so.

Do you believe the earth is a circle as opposed to a sphere? The Bible says its a circle.

Play with these a bit.

 

 

Answer: Do you not believe the MSNBC article that I cited and posted when it said that Liberty beat Harvard?

Do you not believe the cited MSNBC article when it quotes the Harvard coach saying that Liberty is, "good"?

These alleged not so bright students win debates and are considered "good" by their Ivy League opponents...What can be said?

Please give me the specific Biblical passage for each of the items that you mentioned.

Thanks,

 

Personally, I take the American mainstream media with a large grain of salt ever since they trumpeted the Bush line that there were WMDs in Iraq.

As far as beating Harvard and Harvard's coach referring to the team as "tough" (not "good" as you claim) - any team in any contest can beat another. That's the nature of competition. I don't doubt that they're aggressive debaters (propagandists have to be aggressive to be convincing). That doesn't make them #1 in the nation. You've been called on this once - stop lying.

Again, winning debates doesn't necessarily mean you're a bright person. It means you speak well, know how to arrange evidence to meet your ends and have had the rules of argument drilled into your skull.

 The scriptures you asked for:

On bats being birds - Lev. 11:13-19, Deut.14:11-18

On rabbits chewing cud - Lev. 11:6

On the shape of the earth - Is. 40:22, Matt 4:8 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: Answer: No

pby wrote:

 

Answer: No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

But you yourself ought to know that what the press is repeating is deceptive ... so repeating it is dishonest. It is lying.

If you don't realize this, my condolences to you.

 

PS Is this an example of the great debating skills of your school?  If so, do you know what a 'self refutation' is?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: MattShizzle

pby wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Damn, if lying is really a sin against God, there's gonna be a WHOLE lot of Christians joining us in hell! LOL!!!

Answer: You are an intellectual giant Mr. Shizzle and every post reveals your ability to be rational (/sarcasm).

Have you heard that you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses? You should take that advice, considering you seem to think that you are in a position to tell what's rational.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: pby

KSMB wrote:
pby wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Damn, if lying is really a sin against God, there's gonna be a WHOLE lot of Christians joining us in hell! LOL!!!

Answer: You are an intellectual giant Mr. Shizzle and every post reveals your ability to be rational (/sarcasm).

Have you heard that you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses? You should take that advice, considering you seem to think that you are in a position to tell what's rational.

 

I just took that personal attack as yet more evidence of debating skills of his school... I thought that needless addition of the the "/sarcasm" tag at the end of a statement already dripping with enough sarcasm for a grade schooler to pick up, was priceless....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: pby

todangst wrote:
pby wrote:

 

Answer: No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

But you yourself ought to know that what the press is repeating is deceptive ... so repeating it is dishonest. It is lying.

If you don't realize this, my condolences to you.

 

PS Is this an example of the great debating skills of your school?  If so, do you know what a 'self refutation' is?

 

 Liberty University is not/was not my school.

The original post I addressed asserted that Liberty's students were "dumb". My questions stands, if Liberty students are "dumb" what are the Harvard students that Liberty beat in their debate?

And are you saying that the MSNBC article lied about Liberty beating Harvard and lied that Harvard 's debate coach referred to Liberty as "tough"? 

And it isn't a lie that Liberty was ranked #1.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote:todangst

pby wrote:
todangst wrote:
pby wrote:

 

Answer: No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

But you yourself ought to know that what the press is repeating is deceptive ... so repeating it is dishonest. It is lying.

If you don't realize this, my condolences to you.

 

PS Is this an example of the great debating skills of your school? If so, do you know what a 'self refutation' is?

 

Liberty University is not/was not my school.

Ok.

Quote:

And are you saying that the MSNBC article lied about Liberty beating Harvard and lied that Harvard 's debate coach referred to Liberty as "tough"?

No. What I am saying is that the number 1 ranking is a specious claim... it's literally true, but deceptive, as it implies that the school is the best debating team, when in fact, they are not even mediocre.

The ranking comes not from their school being the 'best debate team' but from the fact that the school garnered the most overall points from debating more often, and at lower levels.

So it's dishonest to actually assert the number 1 ranking as meaningful, yet if you were honest, you'd concede that the entire point of making the claim is to make the implication that they are the best team. 

Quote:

And it isn't a lie that Liberty was ranked #1.

Again, the lie is that the 'number 1 ranking' means that they are the best debate team. This is the very implication that statement gives. In reality, the ranking is merely a collection of points garnered from debating more often, and at lower levels... and not an idicator that the school is the 'best debate team'

So to keep repeating this as meaning that they are best debating school is a lie.

And the fact that I have to point this out to you shows that you have no problem relying on deception.

 The article, above:

As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years.

Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120.

When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.

 

Obviously, no sane person would brag about this. The only responses therefore, are to concede to the truth, or to lie, and come up with specious manner of pretending that Liberty did well.

This is what your argument does.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: pby

todangst wrote:
pby wrote:
todangst wrote:
pby wrote:

 

Answer: No lies, here just repeating what has been reported in the mainstream press...That Liberty University was ranked #1 (as you noted yourself via press citations).

But you yourself ought to know that what the press is repeating is deceptive ... so repeating it is dishonest. It is lying.

If you don't realize this, my condolences to you.

 

PS Is this an example of the great debating skills of your school? If so, do you know what a 'self refutation' is?

 

Liberty University is not/was not my school.

Ok.

Quote:

And are you saying that the MSNBC article lied about Liberty beating Harvard and lied that Harvard 's debate coach referred to Liberty as "tough"?

No. What I am saying is that the number 1 ranking is a specious claim... it's literally true, but deceptive, as it implies that the school is the best debating team, when in fact, they are not even mediocre.

The ranking comes not from their school being the 'best debate team' but from the fact that the school garnered the most overall points from debating more often, and at lower levels.

So it's dishonest to actually assert the number 1 ranking as meaningful, yet if you were honest, you'd concede that the entire point of making the claim is to make the implication that they are the best team. 

Quote:

And it isn't a lie that Liberty was ranked #1.

Again, the lie is that the 'number 1 ranking' means that they are the best debate team. This is the very implication that statement gives. In reality, the ranking is merely a collection of points garnered from debating more often, and at lower levels... and not an idicator that the school is the 'best debate team'

So to keep repeating this as meaning that they are best debating school is a lie.

And the fact that I have to point this out to you shows that you have no problem relying on deception.

 The article, above:

As I've explained before, the #1overall ranking in college debate is nothing more than a total points system that counts novice, junior varsity and varsity all together and ignores the quality of the competition. Liberty University gets to be #1 ranked by sending lots and lots of novices and JV debaters to smaller regional tournaments, piling up points. But their varsity team is slightly above average at very best. No varsity team from Liberty has finished with a winning record at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in the last 8 years.

Here's a few more stats that might illuminate the true reality. Let's look at the winning percentages of the top teams from around the nation (each team is 2 people and each school typically has multiple teams entered in tournaments). Michigan State leads the way with two teams above 82% (one at 87%, far and away best in the nation). Behind them are the usual suspects - Emory, Berkeley, Northwestern. Where's Liberty? Their highest ranked team is 81st with a 54.2% winning percentage. None of their other teams are in the top 120.

When weighted for quality, matched against the top winning teams, Liberty's top team is ranked 111th with a 3-6 record against the top 25. In matchups against teams that "clear" at tournaments - meaning teams that qualify for the elimination rounds at tournaments - Liberty doesn't rank at all and is below 26% in wins against them. And when you actually do adjust for quality of competition, where does the Liberty team rank? How about 117th.

 

Obviously, no sane person would brag about this. The only responses therefore, are to concede to the truth, or to lie, and come up with specious manner of pretending that Liberty did well.

This is what your argument does.

 

 

 

I do not disagree with you relative to Liberty's #1 ranking. If you don't like the ranking system, however, talk to the debate society...But they did beat Harvard in a debate (and they won others). Harvard's coach called them "tough".

My point, from my first post on the topic through this post, is that it was not accurate of the first poster I addressed to call these students "dumb". I stand by that.