Television has invaded the American home.  In many ways it has become a god.  David Macaulay even portrays it as such in his book, "Motel of the Mysteries". 

Television programming is gripping, it draws your attention to it.  A whole industry works to compete for that attention.  If it must tell subtle lies, if it needs to paint an unrealistic picture, if it wants for your senses to be dulled to the truth, in order to gain your submission, then it will.  Sound familiar?  Satan speaking to Eve in the garden of Eden did just that. 

Is a box made of parts to blame?  No.  Does the blame then rest on the industry that vies for your faithful viewing?  No. Remember, the serpent was punished, Eve was punished and Adam was punished.  The only thing not punished was the fruit even though it was pretty and enticing. 

That said let's get on with the results of this debate.

Those for Yes, T.V. does have a place in the Christian home:

Javamama - Contends that Christians must be discerning.  It can be used for evil as well as good. 

sajolley - Argues that the T.V. is no more evil than the internet. (Which, if you are reading this post, would mean that you have internet)  She contends that we can use the T.V. to teach our children to know wrong from right in marketing, and the theories the world holds. 

Those for No, T.V. doen not have a place in the Christian home:

ronandjess - Use scripture (Matt. 6:22-23) to defend their point that what goes in must come out.  The commercials alone will cross out any good a program may have, and blot out the light in your eyes.

Smokin' Barrel - Has a question for each of us, "If Jesus came to your home, would you be able to invite Him to watch what you watch?"  (Funny, I always imagine the answer to this would depend on your view of God, so I'm not sure what would be gained if you asked this of someone who thinks Jesus would even crack open a beer with them.  JudeThree)  Scripture was also used to defend the position: 1 John 2:15-17, we are not to love the world and the things of this world. 

anonymous - Uses 1 John 2:15-17 as well.  The comparison is made that we don't use alcohol to teach our children about alcohol and its effects.  For those that don't have television in their homes, they don't feel they are missing anything. 

creativehsmom - Uses Phillipians 4:8 as a guideline for their t.v. viewing.  Contends that T.V. numbs the brain and provides no interaction. 

So, what will it be?  In light of the arguments put forth, that while the T.V. itself is harmless, it's what the television industry puts on it that goes against everything the Bible teaches us. 

No, the televison (programming) has no place in the Christian home. 

I would like to say here that I have a T.V. in my home for two reasons.  My husband wants it and we enjoy watching our home video's.  For those of us that do have a T.V. then we had better use it wisely using the above scriptures as a guide. 

My life is not better because I have a T.V.  For six lovely months I lived without one.  I did not miss it.  My children for the most part did not miss it.  (They only missed watching their favorite movies, like The Sound of Music.) 

I challenge you to live without any T.V. whatsoever in your home.  Not to make you a more righteous person, but to examine what happens without it. 

Life is something to be enjoyed.  You have to live it.  Many of us find plenty of things to do with ourselves without just sitting around being entertained by technology; Or do we? 

Old Business:

- Please, please consider judging a debate. 

- It isnt' hard.

- It's kind of fun.

New Business:

- I was wondering about the idea of doing a contest to drum up some interest in the blog.  Does anyone have any ideas, for a contest and for a prize? E-mail me your thoughts.

- If you know of any good debates happening here at HSB share the link with us.  I mean intelligent debate, not heated verbal abuse. 

- If you know of any good debate websites, share the link with us.

This debate topic is brought to you by ronandjess.

When television was introduced to the world it was considered to be a passing fad, like pet rocks.  The impact it would have on society was not even considered by most of the population.  There were those that knew of it's power, and there were prophets that warned against it.

The Debate

Knowing what we do now about the influence of T.V., should Christian homes have one?  Yes or No?

Let's Get Ready to Debate!

Well, seeing as no one wanted to step up and be me, I have finally concluded that I must do my duty.  I just hope you are all still reading this blog!

I enjoyed what everyone had to say about this topic.  It would be fun to exapand it out to just what are the reasons parents put their children in public school, after they have been homeschooling, but that isn't the purpose of this blog. 

Let's get down to business:

Those who contend for, A Light -

DreweLlyn - Has two children in public school.  She notes that while her children do "flicker" in the darkness, they have been able to share their hope and godly advice with others. 

Those who contend for, A Fool -

Kristal - Went to school with girls who had been homeschooled and then went to public high school.  She witnessed them being swallowed up and eaten by the dark.  These girls ended up pregnant or not graduating. 

Humpty - Contends that we cannot expect our children to be light in such a dark place.  What little bit of light they have will be snuffed out.  She also blogs about this so go take a look at her post.  She has some good thoughts there.

Javamama - I liked a sentence she used so I will just add it here: I don't really understand why a parent would send their children/sheep into a building filled with wolves who will contantly be trying to devour them. They are in my opinion to weak and vulnerable a prey for the devil to feast on.

ronandjess - I really liked this arguement.  This isn't the usual way of doing things mind you, but to try and do a short synopsis of what was said wouldn't have done it justice.  In the book The Harsh Truth About Public Schoold by Bruce N. Short he has a chapter called "Are your children unequally yoked?" And in it a section titled "But my child is salt and light." He lists it as one of the excuses parents use to send their children to public schools. He has many great points and uses Psalm 144:11-12 as one example, it says "Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood: That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our doughters may be as cornerstones, polished after the similitude of a palace." Also remember that even Christ was not ready to begin his ministry until he was thirty.

I haven't received any other ideas for a debate topic, so I was busy trying to think of something.  As we are all interested in homeschooling, why don't we take a look at a homeschool issue. 

Old Business:

- Be sure to put which side you are contending for in the subject line of your comment/argument.

- If you know of any good debates here at HSB or of a debate website, let me know.

New Business:

-   none

Many parents who homeschool do so with the idea that it will only be until their child is in middle school or high school.  They feel that their child can then be a "light" in a dark world. 

The Debate

Do teens who have been homeschooled and then go on to public school become a "light" or do they become like a fool? 

Participation this week has jumped!  We have had several new contenders.  I wonder if the word is getting out? 

Is the high participation level  because people enjoy being controversial or argumentative?  I think it's possible that people like to fight for what's close to their heart.  As Christians we need to take a stand for the truth, Christ should be what is close to our heart and we should be ready to defend Him! 

Let's take a look at the arguments for this week. 

Those that conteded for Truth/Promise -

Smokin' Barrel (with more than one post) - Contends that the verse says, "...will NOT depart from it."  Deuteronomy 11:18-20 was used to help back this argument.  (11:18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
11:19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
11:20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:) We are to train our children at all times, not just when it is convenient for us or on special occasions.  The argument was given that those that had children that did go astray simply did not do their job in training well enough, that they spent to much time elsewhere. 

Those that contended for Truism -

ronandjess (with more than one post)- Contends that God gave our children free will.  It is out job to give them the tools they need so that they can make their own decisions.  The argument is given that Davis was a godly man and look how his children turned out!

homeschooling6 (with more than one post) - Contends that we must live a life that is an example to our children on how they are, "to go." We need to pray for our children, teach them to hide the Word in their heart, but they have free will.

lazycreek - Contends that Proverbs 22:6 relates to human character, " both the parents' and the child's. Humanity is incapable of attaining to absolutes in this world." The argument is given that, "we don't know the way our child "should" go, in the sense that God defines the life-path. ("Good works prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them," Eph 2:10). The best we can do as parents is show our children how to listen to God, how to obey, and how to repent. It will ultimately be their choice whether they do or not." 

Smokin' Barrel and lazycreek both gave refrences to support their arguments.  I want to applaud them for this.  Giving a reference results in a stronger argument. 

Based on the arguments given I have to say that Proverbs 22:6 is a truism.  Understand that this was not due to the fact that more contended for truism then truth, rather that the Bible refrences given and their context led me to see that. 

I have a few thoughts I'd like to share.  I do this because the arguments were not given anywhere else, and I feel they should have been.  I have given much thought and prayer to this verse.

-  The word proverbs itself does not mean promise.  It comes from the Hebrew word mashal which means comparison.  (Definition taken from Crossmap Dictionary)  Proverbs is one of the books of poetry.  Hebrew poetry does not rhyme it compares and contrasts, and you can see this throughout Proverbs. 

-  Solomon collected these proverbs as he heard them from other rulers/people and wrote them down.  It is said that he collected over 3,000 proverbs, obviously they did not all pass God's standard and wind up in scripture.  Solomon did not write all of the proverbs, there are several evidences that show this.  Since Solomon collected these proverbs, that means God didn't give all of them to him. 

-  Smokin' Barrel mentioned that we are to train our children until they are 18.  Why 18?  That age of accountability was only set within the last 100 years in the U.S. other countries have different ages.  What is the Biblical age of accountability?  I'm going to argue that we are to never quit training our children.  My child my be an adult, but I am still my brothers keeper, I should still correct and train.  My husband and I still call our parents and ask them to "train" us in certain areas.

-  Ephesisans 2:9 says that we are saved by faith and not works, lest any man should boast. This verse is for myself, and my own salvation but I believe it applies to anyone I witness too.  It is not my works that will save anyone, least of all my children.  I am very glad of that!  That does not excuse my duty and responsibility to my children, the more training I give them the easier their lives will be later.  However, if my childrens future for a Godly life was entirely dependent on me, I would fail.  I am human.  All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  This includes our children.  Sin does not stop short in us for the rest of our lives when we ask Jesus into our hearts. 

-  If a parent could train their child so that there was no way they could depart from it, then what need does that child have of a savior?  God gave everyone free will, if a child is trained so that they do not stray, then have they done this of their own free will? 

-  We are all tempted.  If we decide to submit to temptation is that our parents fault?  Many adults who live sinful lives blame it on their parents.  They do not want to accept responsibility for their own actions.  Some of these parents did train their children to not commit the sins that they have.  Many parents will be held responsible for the lack of training they gave these children, but passing the buck goes clear back to Eden. 

-  God had Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and yet they strayed.  Does this mean that God did not train them?  Did they even need training?  Obviously they had no need to grow, they were made a man and a woman, not a child. 

-  I know parents that have two children.  One of their children is known by everyone as a saint.  This child is truly that good and is now in their 30's.  The other child became pregnant at 17.  She later admitted that all of her life she was defiant and rebellious.  In Sunday school she would sit there and say to herself that these people were deluded.  Even as a five year old.  She was not rebelling against her parents she later realized, she was rebelling against God.  These parents raised these children with the same standards.  They did not give up on their second child because she was a source of frustration.  They did not neglect her training.  This young woman will flat out tell you that is was her, not her parents. 

-  Proverbs 22:2 says, The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all.  This is truth.  Obviously some of the Proverbs are truth.  Proverbs 22:29 says Seest thou a man diligent  in his business?  he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.  This is not a promise.  Not every hard worker will stand before a king or president.  Many hard workers still deal with mean men. 

-  Proverbs 22:2 is backed up by other scripture, Genesis 1 & 2 for starters.  Proverbs 22:6 is not backed up by other scripture.  Many other verses say how we are to train our children, but they do not include a promise.  There is also not a single example of how good parenting will result in a child that will not stray. 

I hope you can see some thoughts and questions that one side could have offered and how the other side could have offered a rebuttal.  Knowing what your opponents arguments are before they even offer them will help you build a good debate. 

God's word works together throught the entire Bible.  If you want to defend your faith you need to use more than one other verse!  After the tempting of Jesus, satan used scripture to back up his arguments.  Jesus countered with scripture.  satan offered yet another piece of scripture.  So did Jesus.  We know that satan was twisting what scripture actually said, but Jesus did not use that as his defense.  He simply replied with another piece of truth. 

Well, the debates seem to be getting worse as far as content and contender participation.  I'm also not receiving any just plain fun debate ideas.  So, let's step it up a notch and see what we come up with!

Old Business:

- As we are elevating the debate topics to a more heated realm, I want to remind everyone to read the rules, found in the links section of the sidebar.

- I'll say it here again, no flaming or bad language used in comments.  All comments of this nature will be deleted.  If user persists with such comments they will be banned from this blog.  (We haven't received any comments like that, YET!)

- Let your friends know about this blog.  The more the merrier!

New Business:

- If you know of any other good debate websites e-mail them to me for review. 

ronandjess has offered this weeks debate idea.  I think it's a good one for our move up to the big time!  Every homeschooler knows it, and it is the basis for our homeschooling. 

The Debate

Is Proverbs 22:6, "Train a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it," an absolute truth and promise from God or is it a truism?

This was some what of a disappointing debate.  Only two people had arguments to offer. 

Those that contended for frivolity -

ronandjess - contend that our children should be allowed to spend their money on the things they want and that they should not be responsible for the things that a parent should provide for them. 

Those that contended for responsibility -

None

Those that contended for moderation -

DreweLlyn - You should teach a child to set aside a tithe, and to set aside money for a larger purchase.  The rest of the money our children should be allowed to spend as they please. 

From the debate it is obvious which side has won.  I would like to say that if my child is in 4-H knitting and I only have a budget for one kind of yarn, and she really would like the fancier yarn, then it is her responsibility to pay for the difference.  You either live within the budget the family can afford, or you pay for it yourself.  Some may see that as frivilous, she got to spend the money on what she wanted.  I see it as responsibility, it was outside my realm of responsibility to my child and her activity and it fell into her realm of responsibility. 

On a different note, what if you don't allow your child to have sweets?  If you have set the guidelines that they may spend their money as they please, then they may very well buy a coke while at an activity.  The child was able to spend their money as they wanted: friviolous.  You could also say it was responsibility, or rather a lack of it.  If your child is always spending money on the little things they won't be able to afford the bigger things.

As I said, this debate was more a matter of personal oppinion.  As per the arguments, frivolity wins. 

My apologies for a lack of debate the last week.  I was nearly run over by the rat race.  That's what I get for standing in the middle of the track!

I've had a couple of debate ideas sent to me, thank you!  I could still use more, so keep those ideas coming. 

Old Business:

- Try contending for the side you don't believe in.  Homy711 commented that it might be hard to contend for the side you don't believe in, without doing it sarcastically.  She was also curious about an example.  Sagerats gave an example of this in the oatmeal vs. peanut butter cookie debate.  Sagerats would much rather have debated for oatmeal, but after reading a few comments opted to contend for peanut butter.  Granted there isn't much to be disgusted about with the side of peanut butter unless you detest it, but instead of basing her arguments on feelings, sagerats based her arguments on facts that she googled up. 

- Remember, a good argument is always based on the FACTS, not FEELINGS. 

- As always a judge is needed for each debate.  I'm only asking you to judge one debate, not to be a permanent judge.  You can't leave an argument for either side in the debate but you can leave your thoughts before letting us know which side of the debate had the stronger arguments.  Look at past debate conclusions to see how it works.

New Business:

- This weeks debate idea is courtesy of homy711.  While this is really a matter of personal oppinion, and could be based on different circumstances, homy711 could use some advice in this area.  I have decided to allow it as a debate because I felt that many of you could contend for your side with scripture.  I also felt it might just encourage some teens to take part in contending for their own money in a non-threatening atmosphere.

The Debate

Should your child be allowed to spend his money any way he chooses (frivolous), or should he be responsible for the expenses of his own activities?

My apologies for a such a late closure on our current debate.  As always time got away from me and then the HSB was closed and I couldn't do anything, and then we had a funeral to attend several hours away from here.  Sooo... Here we finally are!

Homy711 gave the final comment of this debate falling into the "absurd" catagory.  I think I agree.  In posting the debate on if our time was spent wisely, I wondered if there would be those that believe that it is. 

I was hoping that someone might decide to conted for the side they don't truly believe.  There is something to be learned in knowing the other sides arguments, it helps you to conted for truth. 

So, on to the debate! 

Those that conteded that our time is spent wisely:

Once again, none.

Those that contended that our time is not spent wisely:

OreoSouza - Contends that technology has basically separated people. We are not working in groups to accomplish something, but rather working with machines to accomplish our goals. We then run from one technological advance to another, instead of building a relationship with each other and our Savior.  Our time can not be called well spent if it has not been spent obeying the Greatest Commandment and the other Commandment just like it: building relationship with the Father and with each other. Matthew 22:37-40

DreweLlyn - Contends that in other countries where either high technology doesn’t exist, or where it is not affordable, people value family and friendships much more than they do in America. Visiting with neighbors and drinking coffee are the norm, not the exception. People work hard (the women chopped wood, beat carpets, and did all the housework), but they always had time for visiting.

So, the answer to our question, "Are we spending our time (given to us by technological advances) wisely?  No, we aren't.

Is technology to blame for the fact that we don't spend our time wisely?  How many more machines will be made to make our lives easier and save time?  We know that it is man who is to blame for the problems we have in this world, not the technology itself. 

DreweLlyn wrote something very well, that I will share for closing:

First, we must define "well spent". Does that mean making money? Does that mean being entertained? If those two are our definitions, then my response would be, "Yes, all this extra free time is well spent" because the pursuit of money and distraction are rampant in this country. However, because the Bible is our "plumb line" we must allow the Bible to define how best to use our time. I won't bother referencing everything (unless I need to) because the message permeates The Word, that life is about relationships...our relationship with God and with each other. Based on that definition I must say, “No, we are not spending our time wisely.”

Are we wise enough to learn anything from this?  I truly hope so. 

So, it was determined that technology has brought about more good than harm.  

I do have to add Kristal's late argument here.  It does have a purpose to this week's debate.  Kristal points out that technology has brought about the uselessness of man.  Many people have lost their jobs due to technology and that has given them more free time than they really wanted for that period of their lives. 

Let's get down to business:

Old Business:

- Remember to add in the subject line the side you are contending for.

- If you would like to leave a comment about the blog itself, and NOT leave an argument then please leave it in the conclusion blogs.  If you have something to share or an interesting point, I will point it out in the debate post.  (Just as I did with Kristal's.) 

New Business: 

- A volunteer judge is needed for this debate post.  You can not leave an argument for either side. 

Last night I was watching, How William Shatner Changed the World.  I used to be quite the Star Trek fan.  I found it fascinating in light of our last debate.  The program discussed how the world is better because of technology, which was Gene Rodenberry's goal of the shows.  Rodenberry believed that advanced technology would bring peace. 

William Shatner did interview one man who is attracted to the evil side of technology and is actually working towards making humanity like the Borg, a fleet of computer humanoids.  Sorry, I spent quite a bit of time online trying to find out who he was but couldn't find anything as I don't remember his name!  He does work for a University here in the U.S.  and he already has several implants in his own body.  (You can search for better humans and come up with a plethora of sites on how to improve the lives of "imperfect" bodies, either by extending life, or computer chip implants.)

We've already determined that sin comes from the human heart, not the technology itself.  Technology advancements being made, in part, to save us time.  So much time that humans are no longer needed for certain jobs. 

The Debate

Technology has given us more time.  Are we spending that time wisely, Yes or No? 

Eyebright, the darling girl, has volunteered to judge this weeks debate. 

Not very many people offered an argument for this week, only three.  Is that due to the topic or a busy schedule?  Not sure.  We'll keep pressing on. 

Has technology brought more harm than good to mankind?

The three contenders for this debate, all agreed (basically) on whether or not technology has brought more good, or more evil to the world.  Everyone states that technology has brought more good, because with technology we are able to do amazing things. 

Those that contended for harm:

Um, none.

Those that contended for good:

mamaduso - technology helps to save lives, saves time, and makes communication very easy worldwide for familys and employees/employers.

KarenW - technology helps cure disease, get places faster, and makes life easier making life on earth more enjoyable.

DreweLlyn - "The greatest benefit of modern technology, though, is that it gives us the ability, now more than ever, to fulfill the Great Commission. With modern travel, tv, radio, and internet access, with advances in printing which is cheaper than the old printing press, the Gospel actually is able to go into all the world."

All of the contenders also clearly stated that although technology helps to spread sin, the TV, and computer are not at fault for this.  Man is the one to blame for all of the sinful things found on the television and computer. 

Looking at all of these reasons, I think that the winning side is; Technology has helped the world, more than harmed it.

Good job Eyebright! 

So, technology is good.  Which brings a new topic to mind for the new debate!  I'll save that for the new debate posting. 

It would have been interesting if anyone would have contended for harm. 

DreweLlyn made a good point about technology helping to spread the gospel.  Airplanes make it quicker and easier to reach mission fields, e-mail helps bring support and encouragement to missionaries and Christians world wide. Mass media has helped to bring humanity closer together, making this a small world after all.  We may be linked closer together, but we are more separated and isolated than ever. 

You would not believe how hard it is to find just plain fun debate topics!  (What?  Did you think I had an entire list all made out?)  I searched the web and nearly everything was political or religious in nature.  Someday we may reach that level of debating, but it is not now. 

Even websites with topic ideas for the elementary age were absurd!  "Should you be allowed to stay up past your bedtime?"  "Should you be able to eat whatever you want?"  I'm sorry, but these topics question parental authority and have the child focus on their own desires.  What is educational in that?   

I'm sure many people would argue that children have the right to do so.  After all, we adults question our government.  However, we adults have the right to elect someone else in four years if we are unhappy with their work.  We question for the safety and rights of the people at large.  Children question selfishly. 

I suppose that would make a great debate, but as I said, it isn't now!  Not for this new forum.  I want this forum to work with simple topics first, getting the basics of good debate, then we will move into more difficult topics where we will learn to control our emotions and then we can move on to the big stuff. 

Old Business:

- The Contenders need a volunteer to judge this debate.  You can't leave an argument for either side.  Please e-mail me if you are interested.

-A good arguement is based on facts, and sometimes includes experience.  It does not include opinions, especially those of emotion. 

-Remember to tell others about this blog.  I would really like to see more students involved.  I do hope we have already shown a level of safety.  All topics are for everyone's eyes.  Debate is an excellent tool for learning to contend for your faith. 

New Business:

-The Contenders need help finding fun debate topics!  Please e-mail me your topic ideas. 

The Debate

Has technology brought more harm than good to mankind? 

Let's Get Ready to Debate!

This was an awesome debate!  So much so, that I think it scared off any volunteers to judge it!  So I, your hostess of debate, have become the default judge. 

Judging a debate is just as educational as participating in the arguments.  I feel it would make this blog that much more fun if everyone takes a turn doing the judging. 

We only had 6 contenders this week.  Be sure and let others know about this blog!

Well, here are the condensed arguements (you can view them in their entirety HERE):

Those that contended for Fire -

nsremom - has argued that God describes Himself as a consuming fire and what can be more powerful than God? We are told in the Bible to save those from the fires of hell. 

DreweLlyn -  When fire touches something it is destroyed, in a flood things that have been touched by water can still be salvagable.  Fire also stearalizes and kills germs. 

Mamaduso - Nothing can live in fire, things can (and do) live in water.

Kristal - Fire produces soot and smoke, which are also damaging.  Fire's heat can damage items that aren't even in the same room with it.  She also points out that God sends His enemies into a fiery pit, so to speak.  She contends that even a little fire can damage, while a little water can be quickly cleaned up.

Those that contended for Water -

homy711- (entered 2 comments) She points out that God uses fire to purify, while He uses water to destroy.  During the recent wildfires and Hurricane Katrina, the water from the hurricane has done more damage than the wildfires.  If a house burns down, the ground it sat on can be rebuilt on, while the house destroyed by flooding may not be able to be rebuilt on the ground it sat on.  Flooding also carries with it disease and mold.  In the event of a tsunami the water not only wipes away what lies on the surface of the earth it also wipes away the earth itself. 

Eyebright - Fire may change the surface landscape of the earth but things can grow back.  Water can reshape the earth itself, gouging huge trenches and such. Examples are what rivers and flooding have done.  She also contends that water can quench fire but fire cannot destroy water. 

Everyone had some outstanding thoughts to share with us.  I enjoyed nsremom's argument the most but decided that it really wasn't what this debate was about.  As God is the most powerful what is there to debate about?  I felt the debate was more about the actual forces of water and fire themselves.  (Forgive me if I did not make that clear enough in the opening of the debate, this is a learning process!)

The point was also made by two Contenders that God uses the fires of hell.  While this is true, those that are in hell never die.  They get to spend eternity there. 

As for this world's relation with fire, nothing can survive it, as pointed out by mamaduso and DreweLlyn.  A person may live after being in fire, but the cells that the fire touched are killed. 

Kristal pointed out the side effects of fire, soot and smoke.  Soot is terrible to clean up and often can't be done, and smoke itself can kill. 

Both homy711 and Eyebright told us how water destroys not only the surface, it also is powerful enough to change the shape of the earth itself.  Fire can't do this. 

Homy711 pointed out the side effects of water, the diseases it carries and the mold it leaves behind.   We all know what disease can do and how far it can travel in water.  Some molds are described as killer molds, but I'm not sure mold has killed as many people as smoke has. 

Eyebrights contention that water can quench fire but fire can't quench water is something to think about.  We all know that water can quench fire, given we have enough of it.  While fire may boil the water away, the water only turns into wator vapor and moves on to rain another day. 

So, which is stronger fire or water?  I have to say water is the winner.  It can kill fire. 

I would like to point everyone back to nsremom's argument.  God is an all consuming fire, and He is the most powerful thing anywhere.  If you will not accept His Son as Lord of your life then you will spend eternity in the fiery pits of hell.  While God describes Himself as a consuming fire, Jesus describes Himself as a Living Water.  The Living Water is the only thing that can save you from hell.  That is pretty powerful!  Don't spend eternity wishing you had even an ounce of that Living Water to quench your soul. 

Is anyone willing to judge our latest debate?  You must not have left an argument/comment on this debate. 

You can look at the results of our last debate to see what we need for you to do.  You need to choose which side won, not an individual, but critique is always welcome as long as it is constructive. 

If you are willing to do this, please e-mail your results to me, do not post them as a comment. 

THANK YOU!!!

So, how many healthy peanut butter cookies have you eaten? 

Believe it or not, in the past, debate was often used as a form of entertainment.  In rural towns, people would come from miles around to the town church or school to enter into lively discussion on a given topic.  Young and old alike were invited to offer arguments.  To keep the evening fun, the debates were usually over a harmless topic and not political or religious in nature.  The topic wouldn't be revealed by the judges until everyone was seated.  This way, noone could be prepared before hand, or try to bribe the judges. 

Maybe this is one reason, among thousands, society today is breaking down, in minds and relationships.  When's the last time your community got together for a fun evening of lively, regulated discussion over nothing? 

Today there are debate clubs in high schools and colleges, but they are not only contending for the topic, they are also contending for their school.  When debates were just a social gathering the only thing to contend for was the topic.  One side may win, but everyone went home with a sense of community and knowing they had done their best.  There were no trophies, prizes or positons awarded.  It was pure entertainment.  Imagine that!

Let's get down to business...

Old Business:

- If you are new to this blog, please read the rules, found in the links section of the sidebar.

New Business:

- I need for a member to volunteer to determine the winning side for this debate.  The member can not leave an argument for either side and must make their decison based on the facts presented, not the side they favor!

- Be sure to check out the new link in the sidebar for truthtree.com.  It is an outstanding webpage about the description of good debate. 

The Debate

Which is the most destructive:  Fire or Water?

Let's get ready to debate!

Well, here it is, the end of the first debate!  I want to thank all of you that participated.  Everyone (8 in all) had some really good things to contribute. 

The closing of each debate will usually take place on Sat. but I didn't get around to choosing someone to sort through the facts and determine the winner soon enough.  Homy711 graciously accepted the challenge and here is what she has determined:

Those that contended for oatmeal -

Here it is, the first debate.  Be sure to read over The Rules if you have not already done so.  (The Rules can be found in the links section of the sidebar.)

Each week I will cover any new information, links and rule changes in New Business.  If I feel we need to go over a rule, or remind members of links that can help, then it will be covered in Old Business. 

New Business: 

1.  If you have links you think would be helpful and would like to see in the sidebar of this blog, please e-mail me the information.  I am trying to keep the comments portion of this blog for the actual agruements on the debate posts.  You can add, this is fun, great topic and what not at the end of your comments (arguements). 

2.  EVERYONE is invited to participate in every debate.  Teens, children this includes you!

3.  Please be sure to let your fellow bloggers know about this debate!  The more contenders we have the more fun it will be, as well as educational.

Old Business:

1.  We are starting out small and easy!  These first debates may not be able to be supported by scripture.  We are just getting a feel for what a true debate looks like in a fun way.  Heavier topics will come later as we all learn to keep emotion out of our arguements!

2.  REMEMBER!  In the heading of your comment state which side you are contending for! 

3.  Everyone who enters an arguement (comment) will be made a member of, The Contenders, unless they specifically state that they do not want to be a member.

The Debate

Which cookie is the most healthy for the human body, (strictly)oatmeal, or (strictly) peanut butter? 

Let's get ready to debate!

This blog is dedicated to debating truth, in a safe and fun enviornment.  The name of this blog, The Contenders, is taken from Jude 3-4.  It is my hope that those participating in the debates will learn how to be contenders of the faith. 

The goal of this blog is to educate people about true debate, and to teach them to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please read the following rules and comments so that you will know what to expect.

First lets define debate:

A contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

In this blog we will use this definition of contention: