Battle Royale Rules

Nathon Detroit

New member
BATTLE ROYALE RULES

Battle Royale OFFICIAL rules:
After contestants for a Battle Royale have been chosen each contestant will submit to me via their Battle Royale thread (which will be created by me for them) three possible debate topics and their summarized stance on each proposed debate issue.

I will then choose ONE of the topics that I feel would be the most interesting and open a new thread and begin the debate. On the debate thread only the combatants and I will be allowed to make posts. I (as moderator) will only make posts for moderation purposes i.e. keeping the debate on track etc. I will not actually participate in the debate. The debate will last a predetermined amount of posts and then I will close the thread.

The details:
Once a topic has been chosen (by the ringmaster or moderator) The moderator will choose one of the combatants to post his opening argument (all posts must follow existing TOL guidelines regarding length, language etc.). Then the next combatant will make his opening argument via a post. After that each combatant will take turns responding to each others posts until all rounds in the battle are complete. The length of the battle (maximum amount of posts will be determined by the ringmaster or moderator - see rule addition #2). The maximum amount of posts (rounds) in a battle will include each combatants opening and concluding argument posts. NO combatant will be allowed to post TWO posts in a row, it's POINT vs. COUNTER POINT - (basically post and then wait for a response and then respond etc.) Therefore the combatant who is chosen to post first will get the benefit of making his argument first, but the combatant who posts second will get the benefit of having the last word.(The total number of posts may be higher based on moderator posts which of course will not be included in the round or post count). The only exception will be if posts are disqualified due to editing (more on that below) or the post is deleted because it was past the post deadline. Therefore a combatant may have less than the maximum amount of posts in the debate if these situations occur.

BATTLE TALK
For each Battle Royale I will also open up another thread so everyone else can discuss the debate in progress. There will also be a poll for you to vote on who you think is winning the debate (you may want to reserve your vote until the debate has evolved somewhat as you will only get one vote).

TIME LIMIT
Each combatant has 48 hours to make his response, after the last response has been made or directly after the moderator has issued the "Let's get in on" command to start the battle.

EXAMPLE: So, let's say a combatant makes a post and his post is clocked in at: "07-06-2002 05:00 PM" the other combatant has 48 hours from that time to post his follow-up or response, after that post has been made the other combatant has 48 hours from the time of the last response and so on. YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE 48 hours to make a response, you might only take three minutes! But you cannot take MORE than 48 hours.

If, a combatant takes more than 48 hours to make his response his turn will be skipped - and his post will be deleted if he tries to sneak the post in after the time limit has expired.

The moderator will let the combatants know if a time limit has been exceeded and the other combatant will then have 48 hours to make a new point or post. And therefore that combatant will have the luxury of having two posts in a row, which is normally illegal!

EXCEPTIONS
If, for a some reason you know you cannot make the time limit for whatever reason you can ask the moderator if he/she will extend the deadline for another 48 hours. If you have a compelling reason for the 48 hour deadline to be extended the moderator will inform the combatants of the extended time limit. If the extended time limit is exceeded the combatants turn will be skipped.

If the moderator does not feel your reason for extending the time limit is compelling enough he/she will inform you and you either will have to rush your response or skip your turn. Too bad!

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
Ad hominem attacks will most certainly be permitted as long as no forums rules are broken i.e.; foul language, blatant blasphemy etc.

(I would hope my combatant would try such a tactic as it might easily back fire!)

NO POSTS CAN BE EDITED
Once a response has been made each combatant will have exactly 2 minutes to make any edits to their post. After that the "last edited by...." message will be posted on the post and the moderator will delete the post and the combatants turn will be forfeited. IS THIS RULE CLEAR? This rule will be strictly enforced and will have ZERO exceptions!

Basically make sure you are ready to post your response when you post it because we do not want combatants editing their posts after they have been posted.

QUOTING YOUR OPPONENT
Please do not quote your opponents entire post in each of your responses. If you wish to quote parts of his posts in your response that is fine and even encouraged.

SUMMARIZE YOUR QUESTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR RESPONSE
In a post many questions get posed, some serious, some rhetorical. If you have a question you want you opponent to answer make sure to ask in it in a plain and clear way at the bottom of your response i.e,: "Here are my questions for you... 1. bla bla bla? 2. bla bla bla etc.

RULE ABOUT RULES
Battle Royale is young and new therefore the rules may change. I will do my best to make everyone aware of the rule changes and or additions.

-------------------
RULE ADDITION #1
How will the moderator determine which combatant to go first? The moderator of the battle will literally flip a coin! Trust me this is as fun for the moderators as it is you, so I give you my word that the moderators will select the order of the debate based on a REAL flip of the coin.

RULE ADDITION #2
Length of the Battle. Not all Battles will be 20 rounds (20 posts from each combatant). The moderator will determine the length of the Battle AFTER the topic has been selected. That way if a topic is selected that is on the lighter side it can be given a shorter round limit or if a very HEAVY topic is selected the moderator can select a longer battle.

RULE ADDITION #3
The official name of these events shall be "Battle Royale" and not Battle Royal as was first stated. (my bad!)

RULE ADDITION #4
Quoting other sources. If you choose to quote another author or source you must recognize that source clearly in your post. If you use a external source and fail to recognize such source you will be subject to verbal abuse :D.

Furthermore.... let's keep in mind that the "BATTLE ROYALE" is a debate between participants at TheologyOnLine, NOT a debate between external authors, or theologians so let's attempt to use external sources sparingly. The obvious exception might be The Bible (Gods true word), due to the fact that many theology debates will be centered around the Bible in the first place.

RULE ADDITION #5
Minimum and maximum battle length. Battle Royales can range from 5 rounds (minimum) to 30 rounds (maximum).

RULE ADDITION #6
All rules already in existence for TheologyOnLine also apply to the Battles. Please refer to the TOL Commandments if you have questions.

RULE ADDITION #7
Do not attempt to make your entire argument in your FIRST post! Please keep the post length to no longer than 6 short to medium sized paragraphs. These debates should be POINT vs. COUNTER POINT style... in other words make a point and then let the other combatant respond and make his point, don't restate your original argument over and over for the length of the battle. A good example of post lengths can be found in Battle Royale II both Knight AND Zakath did good job of keeping their posts to reasonable lengths.

RULE ADDITION #8 - the copyrights!
By agreeing to participate in a Battle Royale you also agree to allow your Battle to be reprinted or reused in full or in part by TheologyOnLine and it's various entities. In short... Battle Royales belong to TheologyOnLine and can be reprinted only with prior approval from TheologyOnLine.

RULE ADDITION #9
Any participant may attach images to their posts if they choose. However, since only subscribers can attach images to posts it is therefore beneficial to be a TOL subscriber. A regular registered TOL member does not have the ability to post image attachments to their posts and can therefore be at a possible disadvantage. To this we say............ SUBSCRIBE!!! :D

Please use this thread to ask questions about Battle Royale Rules. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Vann

New member
Is there anyone to decide the winner? Or is that left to each individual viewer? Also, what sort of topics would you accept?
 

Justin

New member
Knight, I think this is a cool idea, and I look forward to the debate(s). I did have one question though I'd like to ask. I know that you choose the topic, but do both participants have to give their ok for a topic? For an example, let's say that a topic suggested, and chosen by you, is whether Jesus was 1) fully man and fully God, or 2) something other than this. And let's say that one of the debate participants has no clue about this subject and has never even thought about it. Would that person then have to debate the subject? It seems like the most entertaining (and certainly productive) debates would be ones on a subject that both participants know something about. Just curious :)
 

me again

New member
Too hot to handle ?

Too hot to handle ?

Well, I posted three suggestions. And suggestion #1 is what started Freak & I arguing. So that topic is probably a hot potato.
 

Freak

New member
Good Idea Knight-"The Battle Talk" thread is an excellent one! I hope many particpate as we battle...
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by Vann
Is there anyone to decide the winner? Or is that left to each individual viewer? Also, what sort of topics would you accept?
The winner is in the eye of the beholder. Although we will have a poll in the post debate "Battle Talk" thread. However, my guess is the poll will represent a very unscientific opinion of the winner.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
RULE ADDITION #1

RULE ADDITION #1

How will the moderator select which combatant to go first? I will literally flip a coin. Trust me this is as fun for me as it is you, so I give you my word that I will select the order of the debate based on a REAL flip of the coin.
 

Vann

New member
Perhaps a better way to pick who goes first is to formulate the resolution of the debate, and then, a la traditional debate, the affirmative goes first and the negative closes. So if the argument is, say, "Evolution provides a sound theoretical basis for scientific discovery" or some such, the person arguing for that would go first. Or, likewise, if the argument were, "ID theory succeeds where other theories have failed in the past" then someone who argues that ID theory does that would go first. This would, perhaps, prevent certain people from complaining that Knight rigged the coin toss in favor of one person or another.

Then again, both parties have to agree on the formulation of the topic, so one person could request a topic that gives them whatever position they choose. Hmm, I just think Knight's "coin toss" will eventually lead to more arguments than something a little more formal. Any other ideas?
 

Justin

New member
I assume that if someone is going to quote the work of someone else, that they will have to recognize the author of the work, right? I guess that's obvious, but I just want it to be stated in public view since more than a couple times in the history of TOL people have tried to pass off other people's work as their own. :)
 

Jaltus

New member
How about citing the relevant info in a different thread, since space is already limited in the debates.
 

Evangelion

New member
Plagiarism!

Plagiarism!

I suddenly realised why Jay's latest set of rebuttals were so cogent. It's because he didn't actually write some of the better material, but simply ripped it from a well-known theologian by the name of Dr James White.

Jay has "written" the following:

  • Though being a "scholar" does not guarantee instant infallibility in judgment, it should at least provide assurance of factual understanding. Given this, the scholars seem to feel that these passages in John 8:24 clealry state that Jesus claimed to be God:

    Augustine wrote: "...the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had sin, but to die in sins...In these words, 'Except ye believe that I am,' Jesus meant nothing short of this, 'Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins.' It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and not except ye understand."

    Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms:

    "The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: "Do you want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then you are nothing, and you must die in your sin." No prophet, apostle, or evangelist may proclaim and say: "Believe in God, and also believe that I am God; otherwise you are damned." Or...

    William Hendrickson put it rather bluntly:

    "The "I am" here (8:58) reminds one of the "I am" in 8:24. Basically, the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God!" Or...

    Leon Morris has written,

    " 'I am' must have the fullest significance it can bear. It is, as we have already had occasion to notice...in the style of deity." (in a footnote on same page "ego eimi in LXX renders the Hebrew ani hu which is the way God speaks (cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4, 43:10, 46:4, etc.). The Hebrew may carry a reference to the meaning of the divine name Yahweh (cf. Exod. 3:14). We should almost certainly understand John's use of the term to reflect that in the LXX. It is the style of deity, and it points to the eternity of God according to the strictest understanding of the continuous nature of the present eimi. He continually IS. Cf. Abbott: "taken here, along with other declarations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead" (2228)." Or...

    A.T. Robertson certainly did not see any linguistic problems here:

    "I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God." Or...

    The great expositor J. C. Ryle noted,

    "Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel."

But guess what? None of this was Jay's own work, all of it was somebody else's work, and Jay has passed it off as his own! :down:

Here's the original material, as it appears on White's own Website:

  • It is self-evident that such a far-reaching and in reality astounding claim as is made by the Lord Jesus in John 8:24, 58 is hard to accept outside of the highest estimation of His person. Indeed, Augustine wrote,

    "...the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had sin, but to die in sins...In these words, 'Except ye believe that I am,' Jesus meant nothing short of this, 'Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins.' It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and not except ye understand."

    But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? Though being a "scholar" does not guarantee infallibility in judgment, it should at least provide assurance of factual understanding. Given this, the scholars seem to feel that it can.

    Leon Morris has written,

    " 'I am' must have the fullest significance it can bear. It is, as we have already had occasion to notice...in the style of deity." (in a footnote on same page): "ego eimi in LXX renders the Hebrew ani hu which is the way God speaks (cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4, 43:10, 46:4, etc.). The Hebrew may carry a reference to the meaning of the divine name Yahweh (cf. Exod. 3:14). We should almost certainly understand John's use of the term to reflect that in the LXX. It is the style of deity, and it points to the eternity of God according to the strictest understanding of the continuous nature of the present eimi. He continually IS. Cf. Abbott: "taken here, along with other declarations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead" (2228)."

    Warfield has written concerning this,

    "...and again, as the most impressive language possible, He declares...: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," where He claims for Himself the timeless present of eternity as His mode of existence."


    The great expositor J. C. Ryle noted,

    "Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was "I AM" who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was "I AM" who died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner's hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.

    There is a difference in the Greek verbs here employed which we should carefully notice. The Greek for "was" is quite different from the Greek for "am." It is as if our Lord said, "Before Abraham has born, I have an existence individual and eternal."

    Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms:

    "The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: "Do you want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then you are nothing, and you must die in your sin." No prophet, apostle, or evangelist may proclaim and say: "Believe in God, and also believe that I am God; otherwise you are damned."

    A.T. Robertson certainly did not see any linguistic problems here:

    I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genethenai)."

    And finally, William Hendrickson put it rather bluntly:

    "The "I am" here (8:58) reminds one of the "I am" in 8:24. Basically, the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God!"
Click here to read White's essay for yourself.

If these debates are going to have a shred of credibility, plagiarism must be prohibited, and penalised when it occurs.
 
Last edited:

Freak

New member
I have always cited my sources and will formally during the debate.

Many have gone before me (like A.T. Robertson, Augustine, etc), there work can be cited and used and I attempt to make sure all sources are cited (like with my quotes), etc.
 
Top