From: "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@webtv.net>
To: jerry@challenge2.org, w_w_c_l@yahoo.com
CC: rlbaty@webtv.net
Subject: Re: McDonald v. Baty Fort Collins Debate: Status Report (revised)!
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:04:43 GMT

Jerry, you write, in relevant part:

> If you think that I am in violation
> of Hedges Rules of Controversy
> then you have every right, during
> the debate, to bring that point out.

I do, Jerry, and you are, even further demonstrating your bad faith in your continuing and wayward course.

Jerry, you write:

> (T)his will be my proposition.

> The evidence concludes that
> Robert Baty is an atheist.

> If you are not an atheist I don't
> see why you refuse to deny a
> simple, plainly stated proposition
> that says that you are.

Consistent with your equivocations and bad faith, Jerry, I have both denied your propostion and affirmed it.

I have denied it because I am not, as that term is properly understood, an atheist, and I have affirmed it based on your real, stipulated definition of the term.

I've explained this in my last message to you.

So, Jerry, I can sustain my denial of your proposition on the same basis that you intend to sustain your affirmation. That solves the issue of your "atheist" proposition.

So, you see, we've disposed of both of your propositions and "concluded" that you are not up to any good faith negotiations as to your proposition and you have no proposition worthy of my consideration as to the debate YOU wanted with me in Fort Collins.

However, we have already agreed as to my proposition and the stipulated definitions, and it is ripe for a formal, oral/written, for the record debate.

If it be the case that you are still desirous of discussing that with me in Fort Collins, please begin your good faith negotiations as to he many remaining details that we need to work on.

My last message to you and my latest revised status report follows my name below.

As previously indicated, Jerry, your show of good faith could begin with you doing as I suggested and using my status report to make your own entries as you may wish to propose so that we can keep an accurate and running account of all details as the negotiations "evolve". Just be sure to date and time your revisions as I have been doing.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

----------------------------------------

To: jerry@challenge2.org,
From: Robert Baty
Subject: Re: McDonald v. Baty Debate Status Report (revised)!
Date: Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:55 PM

(Oops! Sorry about that. I should have had "does not believe" instead of "believes" in the status report definition of "evidence". I've corrected it in this version of the message.-RLBaty)

Jerry, in further confirmation that you have yet to proceed to negotiate in good faith, you conclude with:

> I WILL NOT BEND, I WILL NOT
> COMPROMISE, AND I WILL NOT
> GIVE IN TO YOUR DEMANDS.

Jerry, you are in gross violation of the rules you indicated you would abide by. If you will not bend, will not compromise, and will not give in to my "demands", all of which I have done in response to your concerns as to my proposition, then you are in no position to further prosecute your desires for an open, honest, formal, oral debate in Fort Collins with me regarding such important public issues as I might be interested in discussing with you.

Jerry, I am not making "demands". I am trying to get you to simply negotiate in good faith and deal with the issues of interest to me. YOU wanted to discuss something with me, and we've got my proposition and definitions agreed to for that discussion.

We can limit our discussion to my proposition as far as I am concerned.

Following are the two propositions you had previously affirmed and which I asked you to either reaffirm or deny:

Jerry McDonald's Proposition #1:

> If one does NOT believe that
> God has the supernatural creative
> power to create the universe in
> six literal 24 hour days and age it
> to where it would be billions of
> years old in those six literal 24
> hour days, then he is an atheist.

> Affirm: Jerry McDonald
> Deny: Robert Baty

Jerry McDonald's Proposition #2:

> If anyone agrees to moderate
> for an atheist in a debate with
> Jerr y McDonald on the scientific
> evidence of age as to the
> universe and/or earth, then
> that person is an atheist.

> Affirm: Jerry McDonald
> Deny: Robert Baty

Jerry, those are interesting claims and you have now reaffirmed your affirmation that they are true to my denial. We could discuss one of them.

That you now indicate that such claims constitute the premises of such arguments as you intend to make to show someone is an atheist, it is quite appropriate to propose that the truth of the above propositions be first resolved.

Just as with definitions, I would not want the debate to digress into a semantic fuss over what an atheist is and what it takes to make an atheist.

Therefore, your proposition as you propose it, fails to meet the standard of equity so as to match my proposition and "so clearly define the point at issue that there can be no misunderstanding".

If you are not running, Jerry , then you should be accepting one of the above as your proposition for the debate. They both go directly to one of the points at issue between us. A point that is most assuredly, properly and "so clearly definable that there can be no misunderstanding" that we can "debate" it.

You have boldly proclaimed that you would use the above and such arguments to try and show I am an atheist.

I'm not interested in chasing your rabbits, Jerry.

One argument is enough for me, and I've only proposed, for my side, that one argument be considered (i.e., the "Goliath of GRAS" and its major premise).

Jerry, if you succeed with your "God can make it more and less than 10,000 years old at the same time" or "only atheists moderate for atheists" argument, then we won't need to proceed to your further arguments.

If you fail with those arguments, Jerry, then we can proceed in our next debate to take up your next argument if you and I are both willing.
Alternatively, if you, in continuing bad faith, insist on the following proposition:

> The evidence concludes that
> Robert Baty is an atheist,

then I think it appropriate, among other things, that you limit the stipulated "evidence" definition to what you believe to be your best argument; one of the above or something similar such as you have made reference to.

Jerry, you propose that an atheist is one who:

> "does not believe in the God
> of the Bible"

Since I do believe in the God of the Bible, I think the record here shows that, if anything, your definition of "atheist", that goes to the "precise point at issue", is really (ie., such as is reasonably "concluded from the evidence") one who:

> disagrees with Jerry McDonald
> as to how the Bible should be
> interpreted.

That being the case, by stipulated definition, I am guilty as charged.

So, do you want to give up your "athe ist" argument and negotiate on some other proposition for you; your "age" argument already having been shown to be something there is nothing to debate with me given your present state of belief that your interpretation trumps any evidence to the contrary.

Or, Jerry, do you wish to withdraw as to your side of this and simply debate my proposition for which we are already in agreement as to the proposition and the stipulated definitions?

Jerry, in showing further bad faith, you failed to amend the status report to actually and explicitly input your preferred proposition and stipulated definitions and such other details as you may now wish to deal with.

Please do so in order that we may continue as you may desire, and if you amend your course to act in good faith and to negotiate further for that debate YOU were wanting to produce.

I have again revised the status report as shown following my name below to include what appears to be your preferred pr oposition and real (i.e., "concluded from the evidence"), not alleged, stipulated definitions.

As indicated, we won't need to debate your proposition, Jerry. We'll just announce our agreement that I disagree with you and that, based on your opinion, that makes me an atheist.

You may amend the status as you wish, and we will proceed accordingly. Please note the date and time of your revisions in order to keep things orderly.

SIncerely,
Robert Baty

-------Latest debate status report---------

Debate status report: 02/25/2008; 1:50 p.m MT

Robert Baty's Proposition:

> I f the Bible is God's word (the text)
> and says everything began over a
> period of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour days
> occurring a few thousand years
> ago, and there is empirical evidence
> that some thing i s actually much
> older than a few thousand years,
> then the in terpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

> Affirm: Robert Baty
> Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

Stipulated Definitions:

> God's word: a communication
> from God, in words, that cannot
> be w rong

> Says: the words themselves,
> though they may "mean"
> something other than what
> they "say".

> Few thousand years: more
> than 10,000.

> Empirical evidence that some
> thing is actually much older
> than a few thousand years:
> some thing is actually much
> older than a few thousand
> years and w e can so
> determine with reference to
> evidence independent of the
> Word of God.

> Interpreted: held to "mean",
> possibly in error.

> Accepted: Robert Baty
> Accepted: Jerry McDonald

Jerry McDonald's Proposition:

> The evidence concludes that
> Robert Baty is an atheist.

> Affirm: Jerry McDonald
> Affirm: Robert Baty

Stipulated Definitions:

> Evidence: indications that
> one does not believe that God
> can create a married bachelor
> and some thing that is both
> less than 10,000 years old
> and more than 10,000
> years old at the same time,
> and that one might accept
> the role of moderator for
> an atheist in a scientific,
> not theological, debate
> over the age of stuff.

> Concludes: Jerry McDonald
> decides so.

> Robert Baty: Robert Baty

> Atheist: one who does not
> agree with Jerry McDonald
> regarding the interpretation
> of the Bible.

> Accepted: Robert Baty
> Accepted: (Jerry McDonald????)

Other details/logistics:

> 1. Jerry McDonald in cooperation
> with Marty Trujillo are to arrange
> for an appr opriate venue of their
> choosing in Fort Collins, CO; at
> no cost to Robert Baty.

> 2. The debate will be an oral,
> public debate, for the record.

> 3. Each participant agrees to
> endeavor in good faith to
> strictly adhere to Hedge's 7
> rules of honorable discourse.
> (See summary below.)

> 4. Robert Baty will ask for no
> reimbursements.

> 5. Other details are to be worked
> out in good faith as between
> Jerry McDonald and Robert Bat y.

> Accept: Robert Baty
> Accept: Jerry McDonald

Summary of Hedge's 7 Rules:

1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there can be no misunderstanding respecting them.

2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate, each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge and desire for truth, with himself and that it is possible therefore that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect, in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered unmeaning which contribute nothing to the proof in question, such as desultory remarks, and declamatory expressions, all technical ambiguities and equivocal expressions.

4. Personal reflections on an adersary should in no instance be indulged in. Whatever his private character, his follies are not to be named, nor allu ded to in controversy. Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect in respect to the question in discussion, but are productive of real evil

5. No one has a right to accuse his adversary with indirect motives.

6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintai ns it, unless he expressly avows them.

7. As truth and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be on either side should be examined with fairness and candor, and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by arts or sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable discourse.

-----------------------------
-----------------------------