CROSS-EXAMINATION (beta): Churches should not have their tax-exempt status removed.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I wanted to try something that is perhaps new. I think cross-examination is a useful method of debating so I was considering how to accomplish this within the current format. This debate is unrated. Here are the rules:
--Each participant will get to ask and answer 4 questions.
--There will be no responses or rebuttals to an opponent's answer. You are only allowed to ask another question.
--The Instigator will open Round 1 by waiving.
--In the Contender's portion of Round 1, they will ask their first question to the Instigator.
--Opening Round 2, the Instigator will answer the Contender's question, then they will ask the Contender a question.
--Subsequent rounds will follow the same format (provide an answer to previous question, ask a new question) until Round 5.
--In Round 5, the Instigator will follow the normal procedure of answering the Contender's previous question, as well as asking a new question. However, in the Contender's portion of Round 5, they will ONLY provide an answer and end the cross examination. This should allow each participant to ask and answer 4 questions.
Here's an example of what it should look like:
Round 1 (Instigator): Waive.
Round 1 (Contender):
Ask Contender's first question (CQ1=Contender Question #1).
Round 2 (Instigator):
Round 2 (Contender):
Round 3 (Instigator):
Round 3 (Contender):
Round 4 (Instigator):
Round 4 (Contender):
Round 5 (Instigator):
Round 5 (Contender):
End cross examination.
The government is not establishing a religion, nor even promoting it.
I know we said no rebuttals but I think this is the perfect opportunity to see if we can break the ideas within the answers with my second question of the round.
1) do you believe that secular 501(c)(3) organizations should also lose their tax-exempt status?
2) Do you believe that hundreds of thousands of churches across America should lose their tax-exempt status because of a relatively few cases of abuse?
If that money had been taxed at a hypothetical 25% rate, we would have had $45,000 less to spend on those in our community. Now multiply those types of numbers all across the country and you would see a massive drop in private dollars being used to meet these needs.
The tax has contributed to a high rate (~90%) of owner-occupied residences within Estonia" [Wikipedia]
middle-age might seem irrelevant, but the past builds toward the future. From mistakes about monarchy, we have established stronger monarch based governments. Similarly, if we allow the pope to be tax-exempt merely because they can excommunicate the monarch, then there is a terrifying implication of power and influence. I hope that question didn't seem too outlandish.
Yes, I'm thinking this would not actually work well as a stand alone form of debating for that reason. If I were to test this again, I would probably do so following a real debate. This would allow for participants to question content already discussed there.
I think the questions dwindle over time as they are answered. Also thanks for making the topic worldwide. I think this is near impossible in US where you can't really buy land like in Estonia
Just saw your comment after posting. I am alright continuing with 4 questions. Go ahead and post 4 in your next round of you want to
we have a lot of space. 3~4 questions doesn't seem like a lot.
Yeah, I'm realizing my wording in the description could have been better to clarify that. What if we adjust and ask 2 questions PER ROUND instead? 4 might be too many but again, this could be adjusted in another debate.
oh, sorry. I thought you meant each round you can ask 4 questions. Asking only 1 is too short lol
Well, since seldiora accepted we'll give it a shot just for kicks
oops. Well, you could argue that this version is more compacted together and allows all answers to be viewed at once, rather than check and guess for random ideas. Or delete this debate if you really want. Up to you.
Oh cool. Maybe I'll delete this for now so I can check that out since it'll probably be less confusing!
ok, we can test if discord or DART is a better platform for asking these kind of questions.
There is a discord server for this:
My thought was this could provide a useful framework for two participants to follow up on a good debate. It could possibly be used as a stand alone tool to. I know it's a bit convoluted but I didn't want to do any less than four questions, and I couldn't organize it better given the 5 round limit.
Feel free to give suggestions or feedback if you think this seems like it could be useful. If not, I suppose public ridicule would be fitting. It might be a flop, but I thought it was worth a try!