Debate Rulings

[Allyn]

for public consumption.

Our decision to make the rulings going on behind the scene public I think will be beneficial. I don't expect too many issues but where there are any that demand a rulling we will share them here.

[simplyforgiven]

JLVaughn Wrote:
"Dennison,

First point of order: Jack agreed to demonstrate the nature of the Genesis 1:1 heavens and earth. That issue is neither part of his resolve, nor is it any point in his entire argument. Jack is in violation of the terms of the original agreement.

Second point of order. Jack's resolve:

I will be negating the Covenant Creationist premise that heaven and earth is Israel.

H&E = Israel is not a Covenant Creationist premise. I have never given that premise. I do not know of a Covenant Creationist that has. The article that Jack later quotes from starts with an entirely different premise.


Preterists recognize that the “end” spoken of in prophecy is not the end of the physical world. Rather, it is the end of the old covenant, the end of the “old creation,” the passing away of “the first heaven and the first earth” (Rev. 21:1). We call this Covenant Eschatology. Covenant Creation views the original “heavens and earth” which God made “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) as directly related to God’s creation of the “new heaven and new earth” (Rev. 21:1).


planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1

To paraphrase: The premise is that the end must match the beginning. If the end is physical, then the beginning must be physical. If the end is covenantal, then the beginning must be covenantal. If the end is a metonymy, then the beginning must be a metonymy for the same thing or something reasonably and recognizably similar.

As it is typically bad form to put false words into your opponent's mouth. Jack has posted an obvious strawman. I must request that you rule his First negative out of order.

Thank-you"


This is a misunderstanding from the start you know this right?
Since its been almost over a month now, I cant exactly remember how everything exactly went.
So since you pulled a red flag i decided to investigate upon these things.
1. The agreement about the Resolve.
2. Is Jack's case "in violation of the terms of the original agreement"
3. Is Jacks Resolve "Israel is not a Covenant Creationist premise" a false application/strawman that Jack has created to "put words in your mouth"

As you know my only AUTHORITY as the Judge is to enforce what the participating debaters have agreed upon.
so the "Defining and setting the terms " thread is the law that I will enforce. Personally I see many flaws in logic and structure in both cases that i CANNOT comment on because it would give one the edge over the other. Just remember if you make a claim, you must prove it. Claims can be a small or big but nevertheless must be proven.

1. The agreement about the Resolve
This is what i have done so far.
I went back to bring evidence of the actual agreement between you and KJ.
Page 1, was a big mess with lots of confusion on the "setting terms" thread.

KJ is stance is this.
The substantive difference between us is that you say that (you)the H & E of Genesis 1 is NOT the physical universe and I (KJ) say it is. It was on this point that I challenged you to this debate and you accepted.

We agree that the first H & E is not the physical universe. But we disagree that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the physical universe.

His last remark without the context, and without KNOWING HIM is confusing, a truth is who wouldnt be?
let me bring more evidence about what was agreed upon.

The resolve itself for you is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.
For me it is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe. The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E.
Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=2#ixzz1DPBhuEnM

I have stated what my resolve will be. You may state yours how you wish. We have taken Dennison's time so you must now state your resolve. The ball is in your court. This is my FINAL word about my resolve.
Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=2#ixzz1DPCasxIH

You and I have discussed this before as well.
Dennison,


Jan 6, 2011, 11:39am, simplyforgiven wrote: Jeff Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.

Correct? Yes or No?

KJ Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe.

This is part of your contentions. "The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E."

No. That won't work.

Resolve: The heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 is the first heaven and first earth of Revelation 21:1.

I need some help with understanding contentions and warrants. Should the part about it not being the physical universe be part of the resolve or the contentions? ©2011, JLVaughn, All Rights Reserved.Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=2#ixzz1DPI5nKNV

As you can see, taking KJ's comments into consideration and Yours as well about what was agreed upon I came up with this Decision about what exactly is the Agreement about this debate.

The confusion was started on the misunderstanding and the miscommunication about the Definitions of Heavens and Earth.
As i stated from the very beginning this wouldnt be a problem if we correctly define such important "common" terms because everything can taken for granted when it can simply be solved by defining it.
If you wish to review the "terms" thread you will see that the two have not reconciled what exact differences they had until much later, and that there was still a lingering confusion.

I will solve this problem right now by stateing what exactly has been agreed upon.
Your Cases:
A) Jack wants to prove that the Heavens and Earth (NOT THE FIRST) that were mention in Genesis is a Physical Universe. But the First Heaven and First Earth Mention in Revelations that pass away is not a physical universe that was being referenced too.
Therefore Jack disagrees that Revelations and Genesis are connected and are referencing to two different things.
Genesis accounts for a physical universe,
and Revelations accounts a metaphor or for something else.
B)JV wants to prove that Genesis is not a physical universe and is connected to Revelations. the First heaven and First Earth mentioned in Revelations is in fact the same account mentioned in Genesis but not as physical universe.

Judge Rules: Therefore what was agreed upon for the Resolve is stated in Jack's last response over this confusion:
That and I quote "I have stated what my resolve will be. You may state yours how you wish."
Therefore as the Judge, I interpret that the Resolve is chosen independantly.
The Cases will be presented as a result of the chosen resolve over the same topic.

Two Points of Order
2. Is Jack's case "in violation of the terms of the original agreement" because he didnt discuss the nature of Genesis 1
It seems so, but lets look at the WHOLE picture.
1. The reason ya started this debate is because and I quote "The substantive difference between us is that you say that (you)the H & E of Genesis 1 is NOT the physical universe and I (KJ) say it is. It was on this point that I challenged you to this debate and you accepted."
It reads as if both of you are debating whether or not Genesis 1 is a physical universe or not. But of course this is not what is happening from the start becuase this is overruled by the last thing agreed upon that and I quote: "I have stated what my resolve will be. You may state yours how you wish."

So since this was agreed upon proving resolves upon the same topic.
Judge Rules
KJ does make a point and a statement of Clarification about his "reformed view". Therefore since one can bring up independant resolves than Genesis 1 of H&E nature has to be demonstrated is dependant on the RESOLVE.
From what i have read in Jack's case, he makes several points about Genesis 1 in I.1 and I.2.

I do not believe that Jacks case is in violation of the rules that were agreed upon.
1. Because he is negating, so therefore the burden of proof is on the Affirmitive.
2. that both of you decieded to bring up indepenant resolves based on the same topic.

Any other points that JV wants to bring up he can use within the rebuttals to point out Jacks "fallacies" if he wishes too.

3. Is Jacks Resolve "Israel is not a Covenant Creationist premise" a false application/strawman that Jack has created to "put words in your mouth"
He Doesnt directly state that You believe this persay.
You stated in the beginning of the "settling terms" thread:
My view on Genesis is called Covenant Creation. It fits quite nicely and was derived from Roo's and my common belief in Covenant Eschatology. Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=1#ixzz1DPUodE5f
So maybe you can use this within in your rebuttal to defeat his case but its not a violation to bring up a negative case based on premises that you could or could not be argueing.

now within the rebutalls is a different story that can be ironed out.
Remember no one "wins" but are just about holding your points valid. Just becasue you can drop ALL of KJ's points doesnt mean he cant drop ALL of your points as well.

I think the Rebuttal will solve this issue.
IF you do not believe that Israel is the heavens and earth, than state so, and continue on with the debate.

His statement of clarification also states that his "beliefs" have somewhat changed as well, and his case is basically trying to prove that view while negating the premise.

Nessarily if you do not believe Israel as anything to do with H&E than you would have to refute that within the rebuttals.

I think you misunderstand his case. His last point in his conclusion that i barely just read made his whole case topical.

This clearly distinguishes heaven and earth from Israel and the Covenant Creationists cannot prove their case that Genesis 1 is not about the origin of the physical universe.Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ccdebate&action=display&thread=785#ixzz1DPXInJQa

This statement just made all his points topical and not in a violation of any terms.

his premise which wasnt accruraly correct and probably in need of correction is saved by this statement.
His conclusion clarifys his intentions and what the debate is about.

So continue on with the rebuttals.
any more questions?

[simplyforgiven]

Judge Debate Ruling #2
Debate Violation Concerns
Roo wrote:To All,

I am giving Jeff the opportunity to post a withdrawal of two statements so I won't need to draw attention to them in my rebuttal.

1. He said that I have forfeited the debate. Only the judge may decide that and Jeff had no right saying that. It is not Jeff's right to make any judgments. That's what the judge is for.

2. He falsely accused me of erecting a "straw man" because that which I said is his premise was not his premise originally when he wrote two early articles.

He said,
Quote: Those who start with a negative are prone to erecting a straw man.

Unfortunately, that is what my opponent has done. His stated premise was not my premise when I coined the term Covenant Creation back in the fall of 2006. Nor is it the premise stated in the Fulfilled Magazine article, Introduction to Covenant Creation. This article, a basic primer on Covenant Creation, first appeared in the Winter 2008 edition, pp 10-15, and was later reprinted here to allow access to more readers. My opponent linked to this second site and quoted from this article and is therefore familiar with it.Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?....1#ixzz1DVCTqmwt

Jeff's "heaven and earth is Israel" premise is in a later article he wrote and is posted on PreteristPlanet. It says, "By Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn." The date is 13, April 2009 which is after the two articles which Jeff says do not have that premise. This is the only article I cited and Jeff does not deny the premise in that article.
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1

He owes EVERYONE a retraction!

I adjure the judge to order Jeff to publically retract these two statements so I don't have to embarass him by bringing them to the attention of the community in my rebuttal.

Roo

Jackaroo,
The Following are the points that I will look into.
1. PM Procedures.
2. Purpose of Rebuttals
3. Consideration over Redflags-Violations
4. The Retractment of the Statement on forfeiting.
5. False accusations.
The following are points that must be looked into and some are need of corrections over some procedures of this debate.
Remember: There is a purpose for everything in this debate.

1. PM Procedures.
The Purpose for PM's is to privately settle matters that a participating debater brings to the attention of the JUDGE not to eachother.
The whole reason why you even have a Judge is to settle this dispute and the whole reason why you are even having a debate.
So therefore this decree is that any matters concerning this debate should not have direct pm's to and fro from Debater to Debater.
The Correct Procedure: Both debaters have the Right to pull a red flag of a matter that they themselves believe are a violation or out of order within this debate and BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION.

Is this Clear?
This mini Rebuttals going on within the PM that are directly to eachother are not part of this debate, and contaminate not only my position but the ruling as well.

2. Purpose of Rebuttals
Some of the things you are asking to retract can be SETTLED within the Rebuttal.

the purpose of the Rebuttal is to dispute and argue and bring evidence about points that you refute or are defending.
So not every little thing needs to be brought to my attention just because you disagree with it.

The Rebuttal is meant to dispute interpretation of litatature, arguements, and contentions.
The great thing about Rebuttals if you disagree with what the debater said, than post it in your next rebuttal to argue back.

3. Consideration over Redflags-Violations

Just because someone doesnt even know what they are talking about, doesnt mean its a violation. Just because someone is interpreting things wrong, doesnt meant they are in a violation.

Therefore, Consider if your Redflag is even worth my attention because i will extensivly brutalize every single word to bring out the correct Ruling as best as possible and i will use everything in my ability to do so and you MIGHT NOT LIKE IT and think of it as UNFAIR, but My given Right and authority as Judge. To bad.

So dont believe just because you brought something to my attention it will go your way. be wise in your tactics.

B) I also have the right to intervene when i happen to catch something that is out of order even if its not brought to my attention.
When it happens, i will let you know what and why.

4. The Retractment of the Statement on "Forfeiting".
Since Jeff already retracted the very first statement without my consent, than point 4 is already done.
Do not take action, without my approval of it because this can harm the debate procedures and contaminate the rest of the debate.
Also, My Rule would have been, that i dont believe he had to retract that statement.

Why?
because Saying that you forfeited the debate within a rebuttal doesnt do anything.
Thats why i didnt say anything in the first place.
Its a Rebuttal, so Roo, on your very next rebuttal you would have to prove how everything is topical, which you should do so either way.

Also Jeff can say "Roo you lost this debate based on this" and i wouldnt say anything either.
Why because its a rebuttal and you can say the very same thing in your next rebuttal as well.
It doesnt go against my Ruling, and it doesnt violate any terms.
He can say "you lost, muhahaha" for all i care, and it wouldnt mean a thing until he proves it.
So again, this was unnessary to delete. but So be it now.
Lets stick to Procedures Gentlemen or this will quickly go out of hand.
Jeff wrote:
Quote: I made no comments about the judge or his decision in my rebuttal.

Roo Wrote: TO ALL,

Jeff said that I have forfeited the debate AFTER the judge ruled that I violated no agreement. It is not Jeff's right to make that judgment. That's what the judge is for.

Roo
I totally agree with Jeff on this matter.
A) he did not mention anything about the Judge .
B) he did not comment anything about what the Judge decisions were.
C) he doesnt have the authority to make judgements, nor is such a statement is a violation because its a opinion and he is trying to prove his opinion to the Judge.
5. False accusations.
Obvisouly you dont expect me to Go read every single Article that Jeff has written or his group/organization/comrades have written.
And I cannot, and will not, because i am the Judge and this evidence needs to be presented TO ME.

If Jeff believes that you are creating a "strawmen" arguements, than prove that you are not in the first place.
The following proof you stated within your complaint is a "rebuttal" persay.
But guess what its in the wrong place.
this should be presented within your R1 and is not a violation for Jeff to state that your points are not revelant.
of course he is going to make such claims, so your job as a debater is to refute those claims within your rebuttals.

Thats the beauty of rebuttals, you can dispute all of this as you please.
Now if he is falsly quoting you are bringing up things that you didnt even mention than we have a problem.
Roo writes:I adjure the judge to order Jeff to publically retract these two statements so I don't have to embarass him by bringing them to the attention of the community in my rebuttal
Judge rules:No I will not order Jeff to publically retract his two statements, though he did retract one without permission to do so.

But You SHOULD bring this rebuttal up in your next rebuttal HOWEVER with conditions since you guys decided to have a "mini Pm debate" without any consent whats so ever.

Jack you cannot have ANY reference or statements, or any points within your NEXT REBUTTAL (R1) of the following:

Jeff wrote:All,

I have removed the first offending comment from my post.

As for the second, KangarooJack clearly does not know the difference between a premise and a conclusion. And KangarooJack does not know the difference between a general conclusion and a specific conclusion about a specific passage.
The statement KangarooJack referenced is not our premise, nor the premise of the article. The premise is found in the first two paragraphs.
The statement KangarooJack referenced is not our general conclusion about the nature of the heavens and earth. It is our specific conclusion about how one passage uses the terms.
I do not believe my article, which KangarooJack referenced, is that hard to read. We believe Covenant Eschatology. Covenant Eschatology defines "the first heaven and the first earth" of Rev. 21:1 We also believe that "the heavens and the earth" of Genesis 1:1 must match the first H&E of Rev. 21:1. That is our premise.
We follow this premise with numerous examples. These examples are not our premise.
What more can I say? What KangarooJack claimed was "the Covenant Creation premise," is not and has never been the premise of Covenant Creation.
This is so ridiculous, KangarooJack's stated premise is not even consistent with Covenant Eschatology.
Please read the article. Carefully. Don't assume you know my position and go quote mining.
KangarooJack, You really need to start over.

Let me Repeat, Jack your next rebuttal cannot have any reply/response/reference/ or comment about this PM that Jeff stated.
However JV does have the option to bring this post up again in his R2.

We will iron this out within the rebuttals.
Any more questions please PM me with your personal concerns, or red flags of violation if needed.

Please continue your rebuttals.
You have till tommorow i believe Jack to post your R1.

Sorry for the inconvience of taking so long to post this Ruling.

Thank you.

[kangaroojack]

The judge said:

Please continue your rebuttals.
You have till tommorow i believe Jack to post your R1.



Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ccdebate&action=post&thread=788&page=1#ixzz1DWEImNku

Judge,

Jeff posted his rebuttal 1 today (2-9) at 10:40 a.m. which is 11:40 a.m. E.S.T. where I am at. So I have until 10:40 a.m. on 2-11 the day after tomorrow.

KJ

[simplyforgiven]

Very True Jack, I didnt quite catch that.
Thank you for bringning that to my attention.

This is what we will do.
Since Jeff set the bar already, i think we might as well keep it that way.
The 48 hours should start whenever very first R1 is posted.

So Yes. You have until prox. 10:40 am on the 11th.
You can always submit it early if you wish too.
And than Jeff has 48 hours after that.

and so on and so forth. unless to have a better suggesstion.

[simplyforgiven]

JUDGE RULING #3[/B]
Misunderstanding about time responses.

Jeff wrote: "There is a misunderstanding here.

It was my understanding that the two debates were to run simultaneously.

Jack has not posted his R1 to my First Affirmative. It was my understanding that his R1 and my R1 to his First Negative were due within 48 hours of your posting of the 1A and 1N.

It is my understanding that Jack's Defense 1 is due within 48 hours of the posting of my R1 and my D1 is due within 48 hours of him posting his R1.

By my understanding, Jack is now late with his R1, and is planning to post it at the time his D1 is supposed to be posted.

Jack now needs to produce an R1 and a D1. What is the required time schedule for both of those papers?

Please explain the timing of the debate in detail.

Also, I have another potential concern. Jack had insisted that we not be able to use our opponents R1 to help form our own R1, etc. Essentially, that we post as if we hadn't read the paper that is to be posted at the same time. The only way I know to guarantee honoring that would have been for Jack to post his R1 before he read my R1. I realize I sent in my R1 about 8 hours earlier than I understood was required, but Jack is now behind, in part because he spent that 8 hours studying my R1 and complaining about the contents. Jack is so riled up, and now so familiar with my R1, that he could easily, inadvertently violate that portion of the agreement. In his angered state, the first thing to come to mind is often the last thing read."

Im going to try to kill two birds with one stone here.
I will investigate upon the following:
1) The Orginal agreement about the Time alllowed within Rebuttals
2) Is Jack late in posting his R1?
3) Did Jack insist that "we not be able to use our opponents R1 to help form our own R1, etc"
4) Defining Intrusion
5) Mellontes concerns addressed

The first thing i will do is go back to the "Defining and Settings the terms" thread in order to find evidence for the orginal agreement and rules concerning the "time allowed" to post between each rebuttal.
1) The Orginal agreement about the Time alllowed within Rebuttals
Evidence in Consideration from D&S:
Roo wrote on Page 2. "...It is yet to be determined who will be first in this debate. The second man's resolve cannot contain any rebuttal to the first man's resolve. To secure that this does not happen we will both PM our resolves to Dennison and he will then post them at the same time with first man's on the top. This means that the first man will always post his 7 rebuttals first.

The same is true of the closing statements. The second man's cs cannot contain any rebuttal to the first man's cs. All rebuttal in the closing statements must be taken from content in the resolve and/or body of the debate (the 7 rebuttals).

Again, to secure that the second man's cs does not contain rebuttal from the first man's cs we will PM our cs's to Dennison. He will then post them at the same time with the first man's on top. Only the resolve and the cs's are sent to Dennison for him to post. The rebuttals are posted by each man himself. After Dennison posts the two cs's the debate and no man loses. all others may feel free to post their comments providing that the mods allow for it.

I suggest that we leave it to the two mods and the judge to decide who will be the first man. If you agree to this then we will ask them to post their personal preference and the man who receives at least 2 votes will be the first man and will have his resolve and cs posted on top. That man will always post his rebuttals first. The second man has the advantage of having the final word.

This structure allows the both of us to be ourselves and debate in our own way. Yet there is still some structure..."

SimplyForgiven Wrote (Judge) wrote: "Each person will have 7 rebuttals.
Very easy, on the top left hand corner each rebuttal will be numbered.
On other words. R1 JEFF, R1 ROO
total of 14 REBUTTAL responses, but 7 each.
there fore Jeff posts his first rebuttal response, and the Roo will have the last word in rebuttals.
AFTER THE REBUTTALS ARE OVER, NO NEW EVIDENCE NOR POINT CAN BE INTRODUCE INTO THE CLOSING ARGUEMENTS.
after each rebuttals the debators will ask/answer 2 questions as a CX(cross examinations.) Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=2#ixzz1DZuLwg00"

Jeff Wrote:"Judge,

I already indicated that I have no word limits just as long as each point is concise. If Jeff has no other issues then all we need to do now is set a starting date. Jeff mentioned a date but I can't find it. How much time will be allowed to reply to each rebuttal?

I will begin my research and on working on my resolve."

Simply forgiven wrote: "IT should take you a week to finish your case or till the end of the month.
a rebuttal shouldnt take more than 48 hours to reply."
Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=3#ixzz1DZvUUvn1

Moreover: "If you want.
it really depends on what you guys want to do.
I can give ya a week if you want, or till the end of THIS month.
so on Feb the rebuttals should start.

about the rebuttals the 48 hours is just a suggestion.
I think 48 hour is simply enough time to post a response, so that the other wouldnt have more time to come up with more objections.
so it should be equal time.
i think 36 hours wouldnt be so bad either, but the rebuttals were never meant to exceed so much time, because you cant ADD evidence, but you can attack more.
Rebuttals are meant to debate the evidence presented, and reasons why the oppenets fails. soo it shouldnt take to long to defend and than attack.
anymore time would be pointless and would take forever.
we all have activities, so quicker the responses the less debt we have.
remember the heat of debate happens within the responses and makes them better, and it would take away from the passion of a formal debate if we wait more than a week for one rebuttal."

Roo LAST statement concerning this issue: "1. Resolves

2. Seven rebuttals each and you go first each time.

3. Closing statements (Summary of your own position and/or analysis of opponent's position. No new arguments)

Resolves and closing statements sent to judge to post at the same time with your resolve and cs on top. We post the rebuttals ourselves within 48 hours after opponent's.

The judge said that he will be laying it all out.

Roo"

Judge Interpretation:
For what I see, and taking everything i have read (some which is not even posted as evidence) and what i have used as evidence.
My impression from the very start was that each individual depending who decided to go first, will always go first, which meant that thier rebuttal would go in a pattern of 1st than withint 48 hours the second.

Right now Jeff R1 is posted which gives Jack 48 hours to post his R1 because the agreement was as such.

And since Jack and I have done this before, it was easy for us to understand this procedure, and maybe we shouldnt have assumed that you knew this already.

2) Is Jack late in posting his R1?
I Do not believe so.
And let me tell you why.

It would make no sense to post both first rebuttals in the same time becasuue it would make a confusion within the debates of defending and attacking points. and after this confusion Jack would have the last word which would be an unfair advantage.

so instead we have Jeff having the first rebuttal, which is the first word within the debate, to solely attack everything in jacks case.

than jacks R1 would consist of a road map. which he either first attacks or defends first or however he wants to in his very same rebuttal.

(im sorry im at work, and i will be working all day, so i apologize for my grammer errors or whatever.)

So this rebuttalls are fair, that Jeff as the first word, while Jack has the last.
according to the agreement.

3) Did Jack insist that "we not be able to use our opponents R1 to help form our own R1, etc"
When did he state this, because i took so much time looking for this. so this needs to be proven that he stated such a thing.
further investigation needed.

4) Defining Intrusion:
Intrusion in this debate is prohibited.
Intruding is when someone from outside the debate participents tries to voice thier concerns behind the scenes, or just simply intrudes within the debate by posting, or by pming.
also intruding is giving points, or evidences to the debaters behind the scenes through pming.

Such as when a member who is outside of the debate starts to PMing the judge his concerns about this debate.
This is also intruding because you are contaminating the Judges rules, procedures, and his overall judgement.

Intruders can contaminate the Judges rules, and make him biased, and the whole debate can be ruined.

This is prohibited.
5) Mellontes concerns addressed

Mr. Ted.
You pmed me today about your concerns about this debate.
Your on the verge of intruding.
Please do not go any further.

When this debate is OVER, or in a seperate thread you can say whatever you want.
but just realize your concerns can contaminate this debate.

so i did not read your pm at all.
i just ignored it, because i will not contaminate my judgement with concerns of the public.

My only focus is on the debaters and the inteverning of the admin and thats it.

im in a very delicate position so please do not tempt me nor contaminate my thoughts with public opnions or concerns.

My sight, my eyes, only see what the debaters put in front of me, and thats it, nothing else exists.

I just wanted to make that clear.
if you want to make comments go ahead and ask the Admin for a new thread to make commments about this debate.
but i URGE for this to happen AFTER the debate is done.

Thank you,
sorry it took me so long to respond.

[simplyforgiven]

JUDGE RULING #4
Violations and Objections

Hi All,
Im going to try to go in order in a "First come first serve" basis in responding to the Redflags.
I will be answering the following:

1. Is Jeff R3 is underming Judge?
2. Is Jeff rebuttal 3 a debate point?
3. Answering KJ's Complaints.
4. Is Jack underming the Judge?
5. The Purpose of the Ballot

1. Is Jeff R3 is underming Judge?
Jeff's R3 can be divided into several points.
A. Covenant Eschatology
B. Restating the Judges Rules
C. False Premise
D. Impact

Jeff states what he believes Covenant Eschatology Is, than he restates the Judges ruling concerning the Premise that KJ has been attacking. Jeff than using the Judges rulings as evidence to point out that in Jeff's opinion KJ has not complied to correct the premise he is attacking. His last statments were "Impacts" of how all is this revelant to the debate and why KJ don't need to be addressed because they are based on a false premise, therefore invalid.

No where do I see that Jeff has undermined or "gossely violated" the Rullings of the Judge. He has clearly complied and Jeff provided a debate point of why he doesnt need to answer your points because they are based on a "false premise".

So let me make it clear, Jeff has not undermined the Judge in anyway, but instead he is trying to PROVE to the Judge and others his points of view, which he can.

He can say well "KJ lost because of this and that, and he is wrong about this and that" and I wouldnt say a thing because thats exactly what he must and has to prove to the Judge.

Of course without evidence none of that would matter.
In the end, Jeff has not violated any terms from what I see.

Now he insists on the following: "I must insist that my opponent cease and desist the questions and arguments based on his false premise. His rebuttal #2 should be corrected or stripped of every comment that is based on his false premise."

Than I would respond that Jeff clearly doesnt know the purpose of a Rebuttal. Jack can attack whatever he wants but doesnt mean he is right or valid because he states so either. There is no need of a correction, or a "stripping of every comment" because its unnessary.

Your not thinking like a debater.

You have to understand as a Judge i cant intervene and give everyone pointers or direct advice in how to validate your claims nor drop your oppenents claims. All Im suppose to do is settle disputes and take all your proofs and claims into consideration and see who is valid and who is not.

Endure until the End which is what is the most exciting part because I will correctly show you both everything.
But me directly answering this concern, i will not be able to becasue than it will "contaminate" the debate.
In other words i cant really say anything until the debate is offically over.
If i were to answer this directly than it will reveal a stradegy that would be a violation on my part.
So this would have to wait, and i can tell you why later.

2. Is Jeff rebuttal 3 a debate point?
Jeff rebuttal is not a underming of the Judge, but nevertheless a debate point.
I interpret it as a debate point based on its structure and the proofs he uses to demonstrate his claims.

3. Answering KJ's Complaints.
As you can see from above, I dont see Jeff's points as a violation at all. As much as you can state whatever you want KJ, he can also. If he is wrong than continue to prove your points, stengthen your case, and continue to attack his case.
Endure until the End.
Keep on proving to Me your case.

4. Is KJ underming the Judge?

********** Therefore, the debate is off on the grounds that Jeff has repeatedly trespassed against the proper procedures we agreed upon. I claim the victory because his rebuttal 3 not a rebuttal at all. **********
And yes the debate should be fun. But his third rebuttal is nothing but whining. What does this tell you? Again I say that the debate is off!

Jeff FORFEITS the debate. He has incessantly played the role of the judge and his rebuttal 3 was not a rebuttal to my arguments in my rebuttal 2!

And who told you that the debate is off?
Using this as proof, I would accuse you have undermining the Judge. You dont have the ability to "call the debate off"
You can quit, you can forfiet, you can just ignore us and than i will call the debate off based on your absence, but you do not have that ability nor RIGHT to call anything off.

You can try to PROVE to me why it should be called off, or why Jeff is wrong or whatever, but I do not believe that Jeff is commiting any violations.

But unfortunally you are.
You have clearly undermined my authority by making a final decision that you "gave up that right" when you called for a Judge.

Its like stating "Im innocent" in court and deciding to go home guiltless. And of course thats nonesense because the Judge doesnt care about what you think you are, you wil not go free, and he will send the police force after you.

In this case KJ, you are guilty of commiting a offense against the authority of this debate.

So The next issue, would be for you to either continue this debate with your R4 in response to Jeff's R4, or to just forfeit.
Jeff in the other hand has the option to object to the Judge to call off the debate in grounds that Jack is in the violation of the terms. Or Jeff has the option to ask for the "Ballot" now and end the debate with a Decision based on the evidence provided so far.

In my humble opinion, I would consider my suggestion.
That both debaters reconcile and continue with the debate until the 5th rebuttal as much time as they need to make a rebuttal and make thier final arguements.
Than a Ballot will be introduce to settle the debate.

Endure until the end, it will be worth it.

5. The Purpose of the Ballot
This is why im telling you gentlemen to continue with the debate and endure until the End.

Of course this wasnt discussed fully within the terms, but is part of my role as Judge.
So let me explain it now.

The Judges regonizes the Cases of both debaters and observes and notes what points have been dropped or proven valid within the rebuttals. Than the debaters using their Final arguements to basically summarize the debate for the Judge and prove using the statements within the rebuttals of why their points should convince the Judge to vote for Affirmitive or Nagative case.

That Decision is presented within the Ballot.
The Ballot does a number of things. Its basically a overview of the debate. And also it gives a analyized statsitc of the speaker skills.
It also a scrunized Critic from the Judge that tells you everything that you did right or wrong or what you could have done better for both debaters.

Each Debater gets a ballot.

And Each ballot will also contian the best part about the debate.
The RESULTS.
Which points have been valid?
Which points have been dropped?
so to summarize basically the ballots is structered like this:
1. speaker/debater skills,
2. Critics and overview of the debate
3. Results

Therefore Endure is my suggestion if you want these results to be the best and accurate.

Sorry i dont have alot of time to make this look all neat.
Please contact me with your decisions debaters.

[Judge]

[simplyforgiven]

Clarifications on Rebuttals

Just because a Debater chooses not to attack thier oppentents cases does not mean it has violated any terms nor has not followed procedures within the debate.

A debater does not have to attack his oppenent arguemets, but of course this does not benefit him in the end either.

Whatever is not attacked is automatically valid, unless the source of the claims is proven invalid.

So therefore, let it be known that the Rebuttals are for attacking and defending one's case, but doesnt mean one HAS to.
IF one chooses not to, than so be it.
There will be consequences later, unless his one arguement was strong enough to topple all his oppenents arguements.

And again just because one has toppled all his oppenents points doesnt mean that his oppenent still doesnt have the chance to topple yours as well.

Because nobody wins in these debates, its either you validate your claims or its dropped.

A debater can be left with 2 valid claims and 1 dropped or viseversa, and his oppenent is left with solely one claim valid but the rest dropped or viseversa.

The point is that every claim is important.

So some are dropped some are held valid.
One debater can have more valid points than the other but doesnt mean that the other debater doesnt have any valid points.

Just for clarification on Rebuttals and claims.