The Bible supports the notion that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.

Truly, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. I brought up a fair point that making pre-assumptions and requiring people to accept them paints a limiting and unfair debate. So far your only counters were to claim my analogy is flawed (but never showing it) and then try to accuse me of being "Annoying as fuck." Just because I made arguments you seemingly have no response to.

Now, your taking your subjective view point as if it is something we all have to go along with and we don't. You did not have an issue with how the host framed the debate. great for you. But that doesn't mean others can't offer other perspectives on that same issue. There is no reason to get upset over it or yell profanity. You can simply say you don't agree with me and that's fine. I would even love to hear your reasoning so I can offer clarity and a different perspective.

However, when you just came at me with aggression and then ignore everything I have to say and declare it flawed with no evidence and then end it with "I don't want to talk to you." Attitude. I take that as just simply being intolerant and it reminds me of PC culture where no matter what we say the other side will just turn it into an offense or frame it to somehow be a bad thing.

I may be old school in my reasoning, but I take the view that when we meet opposition or disagreement. We should do our best to avoid being offended unless actual hurtful things are said. We also should strive for understanding rather then seeking agreement. I don't subscribe to this (in my opinion) backwards line of reasoning where we meet disagreement with aggression, presume the other side has no merits at all (as I agreed with some of your points) and then when we run out of arguments end it with "I don't want to talk with you anymore." Just listen to what others say, Agree with some points (if you do agree with any that is) say you still disagree and end with a respectful jester of good will.

You are, of course. free to conduct yourself in any manner you wish and ignore what I am saying. But, I hope that you can at least see that perhaps maybe their is value in reconducting yourself in a more pleasent manner. good discussion and good day.

Look, there's a lot I could say here, but frankly I don't desire to carry on this discussion with you. I think it's pretty clear that Pro simply wanted to find another Christian to debate with about Christian doctrine. I understood this immediately, and was not offended, because I don't need to be able to participate in every single debate. You can complain about them being "biased" if you want. My suggestion would be to find a bridge and get over it.

"Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely."

Not really. As Con, you need to make an argument as for WHY God the father and the Holy father are not different persons (which was the whole point originally) and you could do that by taking the atheist point of view that they aren't different because they don't exist. Now, because the host changed it to say that the Bible supports the idea or not, I see what your saying. However, You should not have to believe the bible is divine. You could take the point of Con and not be restricted by pre-assumed beliefs by arguing that the bible is interpretive rather than factual and therefore it could easily be argued that the Bible does not actually support it because its based on a persons interpretations rather than fact.

That would not change the topic at all. However, because you are REQUIRED to assume the bible is divine, such an argument would go against the rules and thus give pro an unfair advantage. You simply cannot justify giving one side an unlimited framework to choose from but then limit it greatly to another.

" Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it."

Honesty i find this argument to be very narrow minded in reasoning and completely missing my point. No where did I say there should not be any rules. Nor did I imply you should be annoying. The ONLY way I see your argument making sense is if One person makes a debate and then the person who accepts it just says something moronic like, "I like potato's." THAT I agree would be very annoying indeed.

However, What I am arguing against is the idea that one must accept pre-determined beliefs in order to just participate in it. It is both bias, unfair, and limits the perspective that can be diverse and varies but maintains the original topic. I agree completely about needing to stay on topic and provided reasonable arguments. nevertheless, there is a fine line between making a rule of a debate that requires one to stay on topic and then making bias rules that force you to argue from a circular framework that you may not agree with and prevent you from offering different points of view.

Ask yourself this since you are a fellow atheist. Would it be fair for someone to make a debate about a religious figure or person and invite you to debate them but on the condition that you must accept that person was divine according to a particular religion? If the answer is no, then my point is as plain as day. If you still can't get it, then I honestly don't know how else to explain that true debates come from hearing ALL perspectives related to the topic and it is unfair to make debates with loaded pre-assumptions that must be accepted no matter what.

"For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made ."

Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely. That's what the rule is meant to prevent. Do you seriously not get that? Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it.

I don't understand how my analogy is flawed. If you think it is, then provide evidence. The fact that this is a doctrinal debate doesn't mean it has to be exclusively within Christian circle reasoning or standard of evidence. For every topic there are infinite perspectives to take. For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made .

"Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is completely standard for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice not to include it." This argument is self-defeating because it is unfair to require participants to accept this assumption. This restriction forces them into a circular argument and prevents them from using their own perspectives and evidence. I don't think one has to act or agree with Christian beliefs in order to debate a Christian topic.

Why should anyone in a debate be told that they have to believe in something in order to argue for or against something? Suppose the debate is about whether capitalism supports private ownership and freedom. If the debate's rules require you to assume that capitalism is divinely inspired, would that be fair to someone who doesn't believe that or wants to make an argument that contradicts that premise?

That analogy is so deeply flawed, it doesn't even make sense. This is a doctrinal debate -- it's about whether or not a certain doctrine is supported by the Bible. Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is *completely standard* for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice to not include it.

Look at it from this perspective: Say I create a debate over tipping and asking if tipping 20% is considered cheap or fair. You, a person who has a passion about the concept of tipping and want to throw your hat in the ring is suddenly met in the rules that you must accept that tipping is the greatest thing ever. How can someone who wants to be con or pro truly offer their perspective if the very rules require you to claim you believe in something you do not? And if you decide to accept that regardless of your true feelings, what arguments can you make when your not allowed to say anything negative about tipping in general?

That's the problem with requiring prerequisites of opinions as conditions for accepting a debate. In the context of this debate, requiring that the person accept the bible as divinity inspired restricts those who might try to argue outside of Christian sources. it is also important for you to know that when this debate was originally made the title was "Are the God of the father and God of the holy spirt the different people" with the rule being added. He only changed it to the bible supports the nation because I made my point previously about the topic being closed to certain circles because of the requirement of needing both sides to agree to believe in the Bible as divine.

Plus, I told him he can do what he wants and that I was only trying to let him know the flaws of the approach. So, its not like I told him in any rude manner that he can't do what he wants or has to do something. And I mean this with total respect to all present, but people these days need to be able to take criticism better. Since I did not curse or insult anyone and have at up to this point maintained professional decorum. I shouldn't be talked it as if I spit in someone's food. I also further apologize if that is not how you meant it, but that is how it is seeming to me.

All i did was make an observation that every debate he makes requires that people accept pre-beliefs that others who may want to participate do not accept and that he should be more open about the diversity of opinions others have over religious concepts to include a more wider audience. I then tried to explain that point of view. So, far either my message has been misunderstood or people are getting overly offended by that simple statement. You don't have to agree and I am always happy to hear different point of view. However, I have a right to express my opinions no matter how it affects others. So, make a big deal out of it if you must. I am merely trying to provide another perspective.

I absolutely do NOT understand what you're getting at. CA wants to debate whether or not the bible supports the idea that the Father and the Holy Spirit are different persons, not whether or not the bible is the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God. The rule exists to make sure the debate stay on-topic. What's wrong with that?

You can, though I do not think it will be needed. Language analysis is encouraged. It's just a rule to ensure consistency.

Why would you limit it to the NSRV?

Why can't I actually look up the. Original Greek it was translated from and parse our what it means?

I would assume the primary reason they do not participate is because they know the Father and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons or because they are not well-versed in Christianity, regardless of their beliefs. That said, I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

Look you can do what you want. I am just telling you that the reality is there are a diversity of people with varying beliefs and that go for and against the bible and when you try to force people to agree to beliefs just for the sake of debating you, many do not partake. Do with that fact for what you will. I am just making you aware of it.

The objective is to find what the Bible has to say about this topic. I'd like to focus on the Bible's claims so I'm not interested in hearing arguments from elsewhere. If other debaters would like different parameters, they are free to ask me in the comments or create their own debates. I'm not forcing anyone to participate that does not want to. I'll rephrase the debate's rules from "Both parties accept the Bible as true" and specify that the debate is about "The Scriptures support the claim that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."

That's my point. Not everyone agrees that the bible is true. No one said YOU can't use the bible as the basis of your arguments. However, when you force others to do the same, you both deny their ability to put forth their own ideological thinking, and force them to stay within a circular reasoning that gives you an unfair advantage. Just as it is completely valid for you to use your faith as the basis of your argument, it would be valid for someone to say. "My opponents arguments may be based on the bible, but if we don't take that as a credible source and look at none theocratic based evidence we will find etc."

True debates are not conducted when you set rules that force people to accept beliefs they may not share.

I will use the Bible as the basis and source for my arguments. All they have to do to refute my arguments, if that rule doesn't exist, is to question the authenticity of the Bible. This would switch the focus and topic of the debate from what the Bible has to say about x topic to is it the true Word of God.

See, your not going to get a lot of people accepting a debate where both parties have to agree that the bible is divinity inspired. Not everyone is Christian or even believes in God. You have got to add room for other beliefs or lack there of if you want challengers.