• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

The List of Rules...

ReverendRV

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 15, 2023
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
558
Points
223
THE LIST OF RULES...

1
) This is the Private Debate Board; only the agreed upon Participants are invited to Debates occurring here, though Members can Start their own Debate Threads. Before a Debate starts, all Participants should acknowledge they've read these Rules. Topics should be clearly defined, and pertain to Calvinism's Doctrines; or closely related Topics. Pasting a Linked Sentence or small Paragraph is allowed. Theology is a Valid form of Argumentation, and will not be called Eisegesis. A Verbatim Verse is not needed to Score Points, though Prooftexts ARE Biblical and will be allowed in a Debate. We all should know our Bible; if your Opponent alludes to a Verse without giving you a Citation, claiming no Scripture was given is out of bounds. Do not Arbitrarily dismiss your Opponent's Position. Bald Assertions as Answers, are Fallacious; such as, 'All Calvinism is Hyper Calvinism'. Staying on Topic is necessary, and changing the Subject can be considered a Foul (IE changing a Topic from Unconditional Election to Unconditional Reprobation, etc). Fouls may also be called for Rudeness, long Posts, not answering questions, etc; anything your Moderator considers to be out of Order under these ten Rules...

2) The volunteer Moderator should check in daily, to moderate per request; or in Fairness, moderate of his own Volition. CCAM Forum Rules apply. Per CCAM's Statement of Faith, Evangelicalism will be considered Orthodox...

3) The Debaters will jointly choose their Moderator from CCAM Members. If a request for Moderation is made, both Debaters should wait for Moderation before proceeding; to keep from overwhelming the Moderator. The Moderator is expected to be very Fair, and not Favor friend over foe...

4) The Pro Position goes first by asking a question. Turns will only be taken after each Debater agrees on the answer to a question, or after the Moderator judges an answer to a question. New arguments won't be presented in a rebuttal; please keep your responses Short and Consise. If the Debaters choose a different Format of Debate, and other Rules; this should be made clear from the start, in the OP of their Debate Thread. No changes in Format/Rule will be allowed during the Debate, unless the Debaters AND the Moderator agree; so choose your Moderator wisely...

5) All participant's Scores start at Zero. The Moderator will Score the Debate by adding a singular point for an answer he Fairly Declares to have Won the Turn, and by subtracting points for each Broken Rule in a turn; even if keeping Score means someone moves into the Negative. The Moderator will not Add a Point when Participants agree, nor when he feels a Turn falls short; then he will end the Turn...

6) Failing to answer a Yes or No question will result in a Warning, afterward Fouls are called for every subsequent failure to answer any Yes or No question; even if the Score moves into the Negative. Quitting a Debate is a Forfeit. Not Posting for a week is a Forfeit. If the Moderator declares a Strawman, it will result in a Warning; then Fouls as needed. Five Fouls of any Nature will result in a Loss. Conceeding ends the Debate. Participants will not agree to disagree; if so, the Moderator will declare the Debate a No Contest...

7) In Case of a tie, the Moderator will declare the Debate a Stalemate, and it's accepted by all participants. Once the Moderator gives his final Ruling, a Debate cannot continue. If the Participants want to continue, a new Debate is required; and the Moderator can then be substituted...

8) Each Debater will agree to Mind the Moderator, and accept the Moderator's Scores/Ruling. This is not Court or a Council; the Moderator isn't your Advocate, nor is he to be a Tyrant. The Moderator will avoid helping a Debater answer a question during the Debate. The Moderator can hurry-up the Debate, even decide to return to the question later; or not allow an irrelevant question. If a Debater's Argument depends on a question, satisfy the Moderator...

9) If a Debater feels wronged by the Moderator of a Private Debate, report it to a Forum Administrator. Please wait to Report until after the Debate; unless Others intervene or harass you. The Administration will judge the Moderator, and if found unfair; he should be rejected from moderating future Private Debates. Your Moderator will have broken CCAM Rule #18, and face the Consequences for it...

10) If you don't want to abide by these Rules, please Post elsewhere. Have Fun, Love your Brother; and Glorify God...
 
Last edited:
Would points for content that digresses off-topically from any individual point at hand be cause for subtracting points? ;) How about the broaching of relevant but nonetheless digressive points without unanimous consent?
 
Would points for content that digresses off-topically from any individual point at hand be cause for subtracting points? ;) How about the broaching of relevant but nonetheless digressive points without unanimous consent?
Maybe Strikes before Subtracting?
 
And the specific topic to be debated?
 
And the specific topic to be debated?

Calvinism. But an agreed upon subject...
"Calvinism" is not a subject that can be debated in the specified format. Calvinism is a HUGE theology, of which soteriology is just one small aspect. The Calvinist view of covenant is different from many other views (especially the Dispensational view). Even were we to limit the debate to soteriology, differences can be found with a Calvinist view of atonement, justification, sanctification, every single element of TULIP, and more. There are 33 chapters, 171 Articles, and some 4,000 verses in the WCF so even that is too much for a forum debate. Some Articles, like 1.6, 3.1, or 11.3 are seemingly simple statements full or particulars that could be individually debated.

Something specific, something limited, needs to be specified (and defined). Presumably, either the moderator of the debate or the Calvinist gets to define the specific subject as it is intended to be used in the debate since the moderator is maintaining some modicum of neutrality and objectivity and the Calvinist is arguing the affirmative case.

I'm not sure I can commit to the time and effort to do this endeavor justice but if a subject is decided upon, I'll consider it. The ability to focus the subject and stay on topic is important to me because digression is the normal operating procedure in soteriology and I'm not having it if this is a moderated debate on a specified topic.
 
"Calvinism" is not a subject that can be debated in the specified format. Calvinism is a HUGE theology, of which soteriology is just one small aspect. The Calvinist view of covenant is different from many other views (especially the Dispensational view). Even were we to limit the debate to soteriology, differences can be found with a Calvinist view of atonement, justification, sanctification, every single element of TULIP, and more. There are 33 chapters, 171 Articles, and some 4,000 verses in the WCF so even that is too much for a forum debate. Some Articles, like 1.6, 3.1, or 11.3 are seemingly simple statements full or particulars that could be individually debated.

Something specific, something limited, needs to be specified (and defined). Presumably, either the moderator of the debate or the Calvinist gets to define the specific subject as it is intended to be used in the debate since the moderator is maintaining some modicum of neutrality and objectivity and the Calvinist is arguing the affirmative case.

I'm not sure I can commit to the time and effort to do this endeavor justice but if a subject is decided upon, I'll consider it. The ability to focus the subject and stay on topic is important to me because digression is the normal operating procedure in soteriology and I'm not having it if this is a moderated debate on a specified topic.
I said Calvinism, because this is the 'Private Discussion on Calvinism' Board. I know the topics will have to be specific. I watched a Debate over whether Romans 9:11 is about individual or Corporate Election? I said to myself, "That's the wrong question to ask". The question needed to be about Theology, not the Verse. I know it's a poor example, but that Debate needed to be better Moderated. In another Debate, one person kept saying to the Moderator, "Make my opponent stick to the Verse". Nobody can win a Theology Debate like that...
 
Last edited:
I would be interested but how is it going to be organized? There has to be a pro person and a con person and you may find trouble finding a con person. The subject must be established and an opening premise stated by each. A rebuttal to each premise. And then I suppose, a new aspect of Calvinism introduced? I need a plan.
 
I like the Idea in a Thread about a Dialectic Debate. It was Civic's Thread at CARM; I suppose he thought he would easily beat us. I got him and others to follow the OP's rules, and imo I easily won...

 
Perhaps a future Rule?
Do you agree faith is a continuing and ongoing part of christians life in Christ- that its not a one time thing in the past ?
Yes I do; from Faith to Faith...

But I think the question is off Point. If you want to take a break from the Point, that's fine. We all need breaks for various reasons. But if you and I agree that a change of Topic results in a loss of a Debate Point, or it results in an outright Loss; we can continue...
 
Would points for content that digresses off-topically from any individual point at hand be cause for subtracting points? ;) How about the broaching of relevant but nonetheless digressive points without unanimous consent?
I posted some trial-run rules in the OP...
 
I would be interested but how is it going to be organized? There has to be a pro person and a con person and you may find trouble finding a con person. The subject must be established and an opening premise stated by each. A rebuttal to each premise. And then I suppose, a new aspect of Calvinism introduced? I need a plan.
I made a trial list of Rules in the OP, if you want to make adjustments...
 
If I can't find any 'takers, I was going to have a Mock Debate as an example of following the Rules...

Yeah, a mock debate is a good idea on how to follow the rules. The DOs and DON'Ts, etc. I would like to debate the Hypostatic Union in Christology.
 
Yeah, a mock debate is a good idea on how to follow the rules. The DOs and DON'Ts, etc. I would like to debate the Hypostatic Union in Christology.
I was thinking, "Does Romans 3:12 prove Total Depravity?"...

The fun part would as the Moderator, being fair to myself; a Debater known as Con...
 
I was thinking, "Does Romans 3:12 prove Total Depravity?"...

The fun part would as the Moderator, being fair to myself; a Debater known as Con...

Sounds like "made alive" versus "total depravity" debate. But we are "made alive" in our regeneration, While the context in Romans 3 is contrasting "unrighteousness" versus "imputed righteousness" in vs. 21-26. The examples that Paul given us in vs. 10-18 can be used for total depravity.
 
Sounds like "made alive" versus "total depravity" debate. But we are "made alive" in our regeneration, While the context in Romans 3 is contrasting "unrighteousness" versus "imputed righteousness" in vs. 21-26. The examples that Paul given us in vs. 10-18 can be used for total depravity.
That's why one of the Rules in my OP over there is sticking to the Topic at hand. I would call a Foul for changing the Topic from Total Depravity to the New Birth...

Anyway, it sounds like fun...

 
Back
Top