For some reason my Google blog search pulls up items from the Catholic Answers forums. This one came up a little while ago:
On James White’s web site, he is advertising’s a number of debates against Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid and Mitch Pacwa.
Presumably, he believes he ‘won’ these debates, at one point noting that St. Joseph’s Communications would not want Catholics to hear them. I did notice that the debates against Mr. White are not for sale there or on Catholic Answers (except one with Jimmy Akin).
Question: Would it be worth procuring the debates against Staples, Madrid and Pacwa from James White’s web site? Or would it be a disappointment, ie, did the Catholic side not do so well?
I wonder, does some “presume” that if you make the tapes of a debate available it automatically follows that you are claiming to have won? I would say if you do not make the tapes available, that might indicate you realize you lost, unless the debate is very old and you have debated the topic since that time, possibly. Also, do you think this fellow got a few quick e-mails warning him away from aomin.org? Hey, at least he was able to post the URL to our website. More than you can say for Envoy! Anyway, Phil Porvaznik always comments on this topic whenever anyone raises it. He has a “scorecard” of which debates I have won and which ones I have lost. I suppose I should be thankful that I’m batting about .384 (that would make me millions in MLB) according to ol’ Phil who, of course, would never step into the ring himself. He says Sungenis won the Papal infallibility debate in Tampa, but sorta forgets to mention that Sungenis not only contradicted Staples in defending the papacy in that debate, but likewise had to assert that Roman popes can themselves be heretics (you should have heard the gasps from the Roman Catholics in the audience). But it was this comment that caught my eye:
And of course Akin won his two debates with White: eternal security and BAM (1995) radio debates so those are safe.
Now, what makes me chuckle here is just this: the key argument Akin presented in 1995 had to do with John 6 and his assertion that Jesus used an “inceptive aorist” here. Since then Akin has admitted the argument was silly, but, despite this, Porvaznik still thinks he won, even though Akin has abandoned one of his most important arguments stated in the debate! You gotta love ol’ Phil. Refuted repeatedly, but nothing—even obvious facts—can keep the boy down. That’s the kind of defender Rome needs, one that is never rattled, even by the truth! Way to go, Phil! You deserve the “True Crusader” Award.
