• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Support Little Help? LIVE Polygyny Debate Online Next Week!

In JD's opening argument, he used the Lamech 'scuse, calling Lamech a mass murderer, and claimed that he was from the "wicked line of Cain".
 
I think if I were to have a live debate, I would want a few rebuttal periods before we get to the challenge questions segment. 10 minutes for opening arguments and 5 minute rebuttal periods, and I would think there needs to be three or four for this topic to be thoroughly fleshed out.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
I think if I were to have a live debate, I would want a few rebuttal periods before we get to the challenge questions segment. 10 minutes for opening arguments and 5 minute rebuttal periods, and I would think there needs to be three or four for this topic to be thoroughly fleshed out.
Click to expand...

I agree for this topic the format wasn't ideal. The opening statements at 20 minutes allowed for too much to be covered while having to try to take notes on all of it in order to challenge them on their positions. Then it just allowed for everything to go off the rails into way too many places. With a topic this complicated, and the need to jump around scripture so much, it should be more focused in its format. But now we know and for the next one we can format it better.

There were many parts of the debate I was unhappy with in my performance, but it was a sharpening experience, and I look forward to being able to do more of it. I think a better format for this debate would be having a few questions up front each side needs to answer, then simply crossing each other on that question, then move along to another question. That way it stays focused, but last I looked we are over 5k views of the debate across channels, so seeds are being planted, and I think a lot of good will come from it.
 
biblemarriages said:
I agree for this topic the format wasn't ideal. The opening statements at 20 minutes allowed for too much to be covered while having to try to take notes on all of it in order to challenge them on their positions. Then it just allowed for everything to go off the rails into way too many places. With a topic this complicated, and the need to jump around scripture so much, it should be more focused in its format. But now we know and for the next one we can format it better.

There were many parts of the debate I was unhappy with in my performance, but it was a sharpening experience, and I look forward to being able to do more of it. I think a better format for this debate would be having a few questions up front each side needs to answer, then simply crossing each other on that question, then move along to another question. That way it stays focused, but last I looked we are over 5k views of the debate across channels, so seeds are being planted, and I think a lot of good will come from it.
Click to expand...
The next time we have such a debate planned, I would LOVE to play devil's advocate to help out with debate prep!
 
For the next debate, something worth considering is that most pro-poly arguments aren't actually pro-poly as much as they are rebuttals to the established fallacies of monogamy only arguments. This is why the monogamy only club uses the "poly is an argument from silence" as their final fall back. The problem is they do not see that their own arguments are also made from silence as they have no real scriptural backing, at worse it is a stalemate as marriage is marriage and neither option is commanded, nor is marriage required. This should be the ultimate goal. The presentation of the arguments should be tailored to reveal this to the opposing debaters as well as the audience, with the focus being not to be superior or win the pro-poly debate as much as it is to expose the lack of scriptural foundation the opposition has. Remove the scales and let the spirit do the rest, the focus should not be to promote poly as much as it is to show monogamy is not commanded as the only option.

Edit** Forgot to add that the main point should always be the requirement to establish polygyny as stated and not interpretted sin. This is why monogamy only and polygyny are both arguments from silence, and at best result in an stalemate.

Something else I was thinking do we have any examples in scripture of monogamy or polygyny being spoken of in a high or low way? As an example, honey is not on the Leviticus 11 diet list, however I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it is spoken of in a negative manner, and all examples I know of reference it as a food. From that we can we make the argument that it is not forbidden to eat.
 
Last edited:
RemnantResilience said:
As an example, honey is not on the Leviticus 11 diet list, however I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it is spoken of in a negative manner, and all examples I know of reference it as a food. From that we can we make the argument that it is not forbidden to eat.
Click to expand...
Too much of a good thing can be bad.
Proverbs 25:16, Have you found honey?
Eat only as much as you need,
Lest you be filled with it and vomit.
And v:27, It is not good to eat much honey;
So to seek one’s own glory is not glory.
 
frederick said:
Too much of a good thing can be bad.
Proverbs 25:16, Have you found honey?
Eat only as much as you need,
Lest you be filled with it and vomit.
And v:27, It is not good to eat much honey;
So to seek one’s own glory is not glory.
Click to expand...
That's true, and proves my point perfectly. My argument was that even though Honey is not on the Lev. 11 list, it is still considered as food. The passages provided can only support this idea, honey is food it is not sin to eat it. Never is the honey referenced negatively in those passages and the passages only fortify that argument. The issue being not the Honey itself or eating of honey but the over consumption of it. It is not the honey that is the problem, but the associated actions towards it is when it becomes a problem.
 
RemnantResilience said:
That's true, and proves my point perfectly. My argument was that even though Honey is not on the Lev. 11 list, it is still considered as food. The passages provided can only support this idea, honey is food it is not sin to eat it. Never is the honey referenced negatively in those passages and the passages only fortify that argument. The issue being not the Honey itself or eating of honey but the over consumption of it. It is not the honey that is the problem, but the associated actions towards it is when it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...
Ok, now I understand your point. Thank you.
 
I should also point out that the overconsumption of honey is depicted as unwise because of the consequences, but that does not make it sin. However this kind of correlation logic is what the monogamy only arguments rely on to be relevant. This is what must be broken down in the debates. Leave nothing to stand on.
 
biblemarriages said:
I agree for this topic the format wasn't ideal. The opening statements at 20 minutes allowed for too much to be covered while having to try to take notes on all of it in order to challenge them on their positions. Then it just allowed for everything to go off the rails into way too many places. With a topic this complicated, and the need to jump around scripture so much, it should be more focused in its format. But now we know and for the next one we can format it better.

There were many parts of the debate I was unhappy with in my performance, but it was a sharpening experience, and I look forward to being able to do more of it. I think a better format for this debate would be having a few questions up front each side needs to answer, then simply crossing each other on that question, then move along to another question. That way it stays focused, but last I looked we are over 5k views of the debate across channels, so seeds are being planted, and I think a lot of good will come from it.
Click to expand...
You did a wonderful job during the debate!
 
RemnantResilience said:
I should also point out that the overconsumption of honey is depicted as unwise because of the consequences, but that does not make it sin. However this kind of correlation logic is what the monogamy only arguments rely on to be relevant. This is what must be broken down in the debates. Leave nothing to stand on.
Click to expand...
But unlike eating too much honey, having relationships with more than one woman is never referred to negatively. The fact that Adam and Eve were in a monogamous relationship when they stuffed it up for everyone through their failure is proof positive that monogamy is far worse than polygyny! And their son, born in a monogamous family situation, was the first murderer. Monogamy produces terrible outcomes and should be banned. ;)
 
RemnantResilience said:
That's true, and proves my point perfectly. My argument was that even though Honey is not on the Lev. 11 list, it is still considered as food. The passages provided can only support this idea, honey is food it is not sin to eat it. Never is the honey referenced negatively in those passages and the passages only fortify that argument. The issue being not the Honey itself or eating of honey but the over consumption of it. It is not the honey that is the problem, but the associated actions towards it is when it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...
Oh but something bad almost happened to Jonathan when he ate honey, so that must mean that eating honey is sinful. ;)
 
frederick said:
But unlike eating too much honey, having relationships with more than one woman is never referred to negatively.
Click to expand...
Um.....

David and Bathsheba. David already had multiple wives.

Sex with multiple women doesn't stop you from adultery.

frederick said:
The fact that Adam and Eve were in a monogamous relationship when they stuffed it up for everyone through their failure is proof positive that monogamy is far worse than polygyny! And their son, born in a monogamous family situation, was the first murderer. Monogamy produces terrible outcomes and should be banned. ;)
Click to expand...
Good example of faulty logic.
 
frederick said:
But adultery is the violation of a clear and unambiguous command from God. That has never been in dispute.


No, but we all know adultery is sin.
Click to expand...
Just because man has sex with multiple women doesn't mean they are all his wives because at least one of them could be already be taken.

There is only no condemnation for multiple marriages.
 
The two guys in the other side just repeated the same talking points I’ve always heard. Presented nothing new. The one guy, I forget his name, just tried to talk over people, interrupt, and get louder than everyone else. The other guy was more composed but still presented nothing new. Made fallacious arguments that if directed towards monogamy would also mean monogamy is wrong and sinful. For example, the tired argument that since Lamech sinned, polygamy is bad. Even though they don’t hold the same standard for monogamy such as since Adam sinned, monogamy is bad. Same worn out tired arguments not based on scripture.
 
So JD starts off the debate with the Appeal to Tradition "Christian position for essentially 2000 years". He is off by about 100 years, so he is being dishonest right off the bat. Then he jumps into the definist fallacy by claiming that it is a sin and a violation of the Law of Love, without specifying that this would only be true in the instance where a man took a second wife against the wishes of his first wife. Then he goes straight into the genetic fallacy by pointing out that the first marriage was monogamous. He elaborates on that by claiming that "this is marriage as it was supposed to be." This is the anecdotal Fallacy. Then he turns around and employs the Hasty Generalization fallacy by inplying that it was God's ideal that got distorted, when Scripture never claims that monogamy itself is God's ideal. He digresses into talking about Cain killing Abel, which was not God's ideal, and here he is employing the Composition fallacy. He then talks about Lamech, accusing him of being a godless man, which is in and of itself a false statement (proof by assertion), but even further, it is an Ad Hominem. an anecdote, and the Association Fallacy all rolled into one argument. He goes back to the Genetic fallacy and asks where does monogamy come from. Then when asking where does polygamy come from, he reiterates his Proof by Assertion "Evil Line of Cain" and resorts to those fallacies (Ad Hominam, Association, Anecdotal) once again, along with the proof by assertion claim that Lamech was essentially a mass murderer and was bragging, but unsubstantiated claims. He claims that Lamech broke God's ideal, which is proof by assertion and proof by association, when he ties it into killing someone, as if killing someone is always murder, which is the Composition Fallacy. He then resorts to a bit of Argument from Silence, "where we really don't see polygamy beyond that, until we get to the patriarchial period. Then he talks abotu Abraham and Hagar and says "we all know how that went", which is the False Cause fallacy, Affirming the Consequent and Appeal to anecdote, all rolled itno one. He called it a "sinful reality", which is again a Definist fallacy. He said that it led to utter disaster, which is again "Proof by Assertion" and the False Cause Fallacy. Next, he extraploates and claims that from that point we contiue to see that polagmy just produced "disaster, death, sin, it's all bad". This is False Cause, Retrospective Determinism and Appeal to Consequences, and the Division Fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top