A reader called my attention to the fact that James White has posted another piece involving me.
In it, White complains about some ad copy for The Bible Answerman Debate referring to his ministry as a Fundamentalist one.
This is a fair complaint, and I’ll talk to the sales and marketing department about changing that.
He also refers to an article that I pointed him to concerning the types of formal debates that I accept.
Unfortunately, White followed what seems to be his frequent practice of not linking to the things that he’s talking about, which has the effect that it’s harder for his readers to read it for themselves and see if he’s handling it accurately.
That’s particularly unfortunate in this case because White is handling the article in a demonstrably inaccurate fashion. He complains about our exchange on The Bible Answerman being referred to as a debate and writes:
I would also say that if he [Akin] took his own writing [in the article in question] seriously he would stop calling his BAM appearance a "debate" of any kind. He demands equal time for a debate, rightly so. Nobody gets equal time on a call-in radio program. He demands a clear thesis that is debatable, rightfully so. Just what was the clear thesis statement on BAM again? Uh…right.
Sorry, James. You need to read a little more closely.
As my readers can see from the link I provided above to the article, the opening of the piece reads:
Debates are fun. They can be stimulating, challenging, and informative. No wonder many people find them the most exciting form of apologetics.
I am often asked whether I have any debates scheduled. The usual answer is no, as far as formal debates are concerned. My schedule is packed, and doing a formal debate takes a lot of preparation. I still do a good number of informal radio and television debates (they take far less preparation), but these aren’t as apologetically interesting. They don’t bring the same focus to a subject as a formal debate.
Over time I have developed my own guidelines for when and how to do formal debates. I’ve shared these with individuals who have asked for them, but putting them in print could benefit individuals who haven’t yet ventured into the world of debating but are contemplating it.
White has missed the fact that I clearly distinguish between formal debates (ones that have guaranteed equal time, thesis statements, etc.) and informal ones of the type that occur on radio and television, including such popular shows as . . . say . . . Hannity & Colmes, which has the word "DEBATE" featured prominently in its opening credits without, so far as I know, FoxNews getting a lot of viewers claiming that the guests on that show don’t debate issues.
That’s not saying that it’s good debating or helpful debating, but it’s debating.
St. Paul debated with folks in his day, but I severely doubt that he ever did anything in Lincoln-Douglas style.
So . . . I take what I’ve written quite seriously, James.
I just don’t hold that a debate has to have the kind of formal structure that is used by debating societies before it is worthy of the august name "debate."
Next time you want to publicly accuse me of being inconsistent with what I’ve written, try to make sure that I’m actually . . . y’know . . . being inconsistent.
