A New Idea for Arguing, Defending David P and Thinking Clearly

EPISODE – We discuss our fabulous new idea for future podcast episodes!
I’m at the Peach’s house today so the grandkids are integrated deeply into this episode.  (You should be used to this by now, Pkarlgh.)
We’ve got an idea for something we can do in future episodes to test our ability to articulate arguments.  It sounds like great fun to us…it may be a horrible idea.  The Peaches makes a few suggestions for topics. I make a few suggestions.  But we’re hoping YOU will have some suggestions, Pkarlgh.
If you have an idea for an argument you want me (or Peach) to articulate…let’s hear it!  The goal is to assign us an argument THAT WE DON’T PERSONALLY HOLD.  In other words, make us defend somebody else’s point of view.
Everywhere Emmi goes, she sees Elmo.  We should make this a movie…
Hey!  Maybe we should argue that 3-year olds are worse that 2-year olds!
I think we should make Amanda argue that the Patriarchy is a bad thing.  That would be really fun.
Then we discuss the purpose of this exercise. Why, on Earth, should we argue an opponent’s point of view?
We probably need a studio audience to make this idea work best. Of course, we don’t have a studio audience. And if we ever get a studio audience, somebody is going to have to take the grandkids out of the room.
Then, we lament that we don’t have a way to contact important, recognizable smart people. We’re just not insiders…
Eventually, Calvinism pops up again. Why?  Because Peaches is apparently OBSESSED with Calvinism. Perhaps it’s beyond her control…?
Then, David Pendleton’s exploits are revisited.  The podcast is here if you missed it: https://johnbranyan.com/scandals-forgiveness-foot-washing-and-german-baptists/
What does forgiveness mean?  Is it correct to keep punishment in place after forgiveness is offered?  What do you think?
We need to decide whether or not to forgive Emmi for breaking into the pantry and opening chicken broth packages.
Peaches explains that it’s hard for people to forgive and forget. She suggests that people kind of like hanging onto grudges.  I’m perplexed. I don’t have a good enough memory to hold grudges… Peaches thinks I’m an alien.  I’ll forgive her for saying that eventually.
We segue into clear communication and an unbelievable (in my opinion) criticism I received recently. I never dreamed somebody would be offended because I’m easy to understand.
Do give us your ideas for arguments, Pkarlgh.  Otherwise, we’ll just make up our own!

Check out this episode!

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

8 Responses

  1. Maybe Mr. Pendleton could do something similar in a catholic Eucharist service which for a “universal church” seems exclusive. I also wonder if it would be possible argue for fundamentalism?

  2. The episode was a fun listen.

    I like the idea of two people discussing a topic in reverse character, as was discussed. I somewhat like the Calvinist idea more than the others (of course, I am one of those annoying determinists who will talk about freewill till both me and my conversational partner are blue in the face and bleeding out the ears), but any experiment would be likely entertaining. I think a follow up conversation, perhaps even in the same episode, might be good too to evaluate how well each player has portrayed other’s position in their own estimation (thought, it would likely influence’s Pkarlgh’s opinion).

  3. By the way I think the punishment should stand for it not occurring to him to use his ventriloquist skills to get away with it.

    1. Bahahaha!!! Can you IMAGINE if he’d hidden the mic and just looked around like he didn’t know where the voice was coming from?! (I mean, I’m still not condoning disruptive behavior. But, goodness, that’s a funny image.)

  4. Again I form thoughts before finishing the podcast lol I believe Mr. Pendleton IS a repeat offender. As documented on your fine podcast, he has been dusruptive in the past, and he was asked multiple times not to be a distraction. The university has an obligation to it’s clients, not just the German Baptists, to enforce the ban for longer than his correspondence took. I think the GBs sound pretty batty honestly, but I’m often accused of being a hater (which is completely true) and being negative. Which is probably true. I do think he should not have interrupted. If someone expressed disagreement with my doctrine during my Easter celebration, I would not have cared what they said, only that they did it. In my opinion, I think he is running the risk of violating the scripture that warns us to not become “a clanging cymbol.”

    I guess to sum up I would say, he conducted himself disrespectfullyand I support the punishment. And I am speaking as someone who was once personally responsible for a crowd warning at a college basketball game.

  5. All of the suggested debates sound great! (Especially the ones involving Tim, Dave, and Al- but hearing Peaches argue the feminist side would be gold.) I would additionally suggest that Amanda takes a pro- Donald Trump position, while John Branyan, takes a pro- Bernie Sanders position- only because that would throw both of you onto an opposing side simultaneously.

    I agree with John, I don’t understand the grudge-holding thing. Maybe, because I’ve already forgiven them before the apology was even offered, or, the action that they apologized for didn’t even offend me to begin with.

    I know that I have left some big comments as well ( Peaches just shared the links of some of the Calvinist conversations, my comments there are pretty long) and have been complimented on it. I’m sure it isn’t the length of the comment that bothers you as much as the lack of content within the word-wall of nothingness.

    Tying two points together, the ability to briefly summarize an opponent’s position is a great advantage in debates. William Lane Craig is a master at it. It’s rather amusing to read transcripts of his debates, because it is just a scholarly version of the same long-winded tactics on blogs. WLC always makes it clear what his points were, and that his opponent never actually addressed them. Or if they misrepresented him, he makes it clear in three sentences how they did it and why it is a misrepresentation. Then he is able to expound on his points with his remaining time. Then his opponents spend all their time replying to his rebuttals that they never actually address WLC’s main points.

    A while back, I found this article ( about arguing the other side). It’s not surprising, but interesting.
    http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

    1. The most important part of this comment is, “I agree with John.”

      I wish you hadn’t suggested I argue for Bernie Sanders. That’s an excellent idea and I hate the thought of doing it.

      1. Hahaha. That’s how you know it’s an excellent idea. If you hate the thought of having to defend that view, then it is the perfect fit.

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart