One of my minor projects this week was to crush an opponent in heated debate. To that end, I instigated an eventful Facebook debate. The opponents:
Dave Nannery (aka Banannery)
Your favorite blogger and a master of logic and theology. Loves all of God’s creatures and was kind to a kitten once. Wildly successful and loved by all the village folk.
Kyle Borg (aka Jr. Cheeseborger)
A friend, a brother of my former roommate, a rabid Presbyterian and seminarian, and a proprietor of the super-secret Synod of Saints blog devoted to dead theologians and infant baptism.
I encourage you to read our arguments and vote on who won! (I.e. yours truly.)
Resolved: Baptists are better than Presbyterians.
I argued for the affirmative (correct) position, while Jr. Cheeseborger argued for the negative (wrong) position.
Hey Jr. Cheeseborger, I was just thinking today about what the main difference is between Baptists and Presbyterians, and as it turns out, the main difference is that Baptists are better. Your thoughts?
If by better you mean Baptists ignore the sound exegesis of covenant theology, ignore historical Christianity, and practically hate children, then yes, you’re correct. But I would say it all hinges on how you define “better.” 🙂
Your accusations fall on deaf ears because some of the soundest exegetes from historical Christianity have been Baptists. For example:
- John the Baptist (duh)
- Jesus (who loved children)
- All the other apostles
- Your mom
I think the only way you could counter my argument is if you inserted your own little three-dot pyramid.
I’ll take your Apostle(s) Paul, Peter, et al, John the Baptist, Jesus, and my mom and raise you Augustine, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Herman Witsius, and Charles Hodge. HA! 😉
Judging from the fact that you did not include a three-dot pyramid with your counter-argument, I can see that you have forfeited that point of the debate. Thus, after a brief celebration of victory, it is time for me to launch into my second logically airtight argument. Its premises are indisputable:
- Premise 1: Most people believe that Dunkin’ Donuts is good.
- Premise 2: Presbyterians believe that dunkin’ babies is good.
- Conclusion 1: Presbyterians believe babies are donuts.
- Premise 3: Most people eat donuts for breakfast.
- Conclusion 2: Presbyterians eat babies for breakfast.
- Premise 4: Baptists don’t eat babies for breakfast.
- Premise 5: People who don’t eat babies for breakfast are better than people who do eat babies for breakfast.
- Conclusion 3: Baptists are better than Presbyterians.
Premise two is disputable since it was only Luther who thought babies should be dunked, and last I checked he wasn’t Presbyterian. Not to mention I do not share your Aristotlian presuppositions, thus rendering any logical syllogism you can throw my way pretty useless. Logic is too circular—after all, what’s the logical syllogism to prove that logic is logical (go ahead and try to process that Baptist).
PS: Why do you hate children?
Jr. Cheeseborger, allow me to dismantle your counter-argument point-by-point. You’re welcome.
- Regarding Luther: He’s dead, ergo your argument is irrelevant.
- Regarding Aristotle: See point 1.
- Regarding logic: Logic is not circular; it is pyramidal. Have you learned nothing from the three-dot pyramid? You are wielding its powers in ignorance, as a child wields his father’s gun.
- Regarding children: If I really hated children, I would bring them in front of the church to splash water in their faces for no reason.
- Regarding white space between paragraphs: You need it.
You can surrender at any time. There is no shame in giving up the debate!
Why do you hate children?
YOUR MOM is circular.
Oooooooh, debate over! You lose!