I was a college debater. It was one of the best courses of study I ever engaged. It taught me the value of evidence, of careful reflective thinking, of the force of presuppositions, of methods of reasoning, of the value of different points of view. The benefits list can be extended. I learned, sometimes in negative ways, how the process can be managed through forceful and/or attractive personality, through devious factors, as through emotions. That list can also be extended. The negatives were so strong in some analysts’ evaluations that they despaired of the benefits of formal debate. Analysts may forget that any procedure attracts practices degrading the process. For years I was a debate coach in colleges where I taught. Students of the program I knew about went on to effective careers, especially in law, education, and ministry. My sons took on the discipline. One taught forensics for several years before entering private professional life where he was engaged in educating and motivating leaders of business, some eminent, in the content, form, style and physical presentation of ideas leading to order of action, and the evaluation of results.
A challenge was sent to our college, to debate a respected attorney and an accredited scientist from the state university. The resolution for debate was presented: Resolved that Christianity is affirmed in the historical, experiential, scientific and linguistic data. The knowledgeable debater knows that there are four debates there with each of the intellectual disciplines separated out for consideration so to keep the resolution directed and well ordered, but we took on the compound resolution. It is standard to place the resolution in an affirmative statement so as to keep matters clear for everyone. My colleague (Dr. G. Douglas Young) and I had the burden of proof. Our challengers would argue the negative (refutation), that Christianity is not affirmed in any of the four disciplines. In short, we won the debate. (We have the recorded debate for anyone to check that conclusion, and we knew that someone in the future might out-debate us.) The attorney thought I sounded like Hubert Humphrey, a Senator from the State making waves in Senate debates in Washington, D. C. Our challengers asked for another debate in the future so to do better, as they said: We thought you would be unsophisticated Sunday School teachers. We agreed to meet at any time, and asked them to set the date. We never heard from them again.
I moved on to another college. For a Fall Faculty Conference, the President invited a speaker recommended to him. The speaker raised, without evidence, a firm challenge to any college value orientation. The President asked if he would debate the issues he had introduced. He would. I was then singled out from the faculty to debate our guest. I protested that I had no time to prepare. My president insisted, as he pleaded: I have gone out on a limb, and you are our debate coach. I had to acquiesce. So I did, and the debate was set for the next day. When it was over, the guest acknowledged that he did not have the evidence to counter my points, and that given my presuppositions he could not support his affirmations about life, ethics, and educational directives. We became friends. He invited me to his campus, to make presentation of my views. On these and other occasions, I gained confidence that in faith and processes that Christianity has legitimate public place, even in secular docks. Christianity can hold its own in intellectual combat and justifies the discipline of apologetics. The matter turns on presuppositions and the origin/interpretation of evidence for the proposition to be managed. It is not likely that debate changes the minds of persons unwilling to change presuppositions. Hebrews 11:6 – He that cometh unto God must believe that he is. In this point is the differential. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020