There's this theory going around I don't like. I don't know any better way to look at it the to treat it as a resolution.
Resolved: Apologetics and Mars Hill Impromptu serve no use and actually detract from your ability to relay the Gospel effectively.
I am Negative.
DISCLAIMER: I am not throwing anyone under the bus here. I love Travis Herche, who from what I understand originated this point of view. I read his blog religiously. I love his article in this year's Red Book on logical chronology and writing a good negative. I love all my fellow speech and debaters who hold this view. I just disagree with you on this one thing.
Here's what, from what I've heard, is the Affirmative.
1. Sharing the Gospel is Based in Empathy
Apologetics and MHI isn't very empathy based. It's more like talking at people than to them. Like sermonizing. There's a reason everyone thinks it's dull. It would be more useful if instead you actually sat down and talked to your judges, one on one, about their life and such.
In real life it won't be like this. You won't get chance to speak for six minutes to the person who disagrees with you and throw Bible verses at them. People who should here the Gospel won't be open to it at all this way. You are actually working against yourself.
2. You Aren't Really Learning Anything
Unless you write your own cards, then you get a minimum of knowledge gain. MHI isn't worth much at all, cards or not.
Here's my comeback (Negative):
Observation Point: MHI and Apol aren't supposed to spread the Gospel, or teach you how. The point is to define and defend your faith. First, to learn what you believe (everyone should be aware of what they're living for, I think). Second, to learn to defend it. Not convert people. Defend it in a logical, empathetic manner that relates to the common man. If you persuade people in the process, perfect, you are the ideal speaker. But the idea is to at least make them recognize you aren't a lunatic.
1. Apol and MHI Should Be Based On Empathy
This is where we have an agreement. I have watched too many lifeless, preachy Mars Hill and Apol speeches. Many of them are like that. I understand why others may dislike them. I think Apol and MHI should be different. My Parli coach, Jacob Aschmutat, can say it better.
"There is certainly some value in understanding *what* one believes, which is how the Apol competitors I watched at NITOC approached the event. They discussed the significance of certain aspects of Christianity, albeit on a very basic level most of the time (which is to be expected; you only have six minutes to talk—hardly enough time to discuss the ontological theory for God’s existence). I wanted to go deeper. I wanted to take advantage of Apol for what the very term meant.
'Apologetics' derives from the Greek word “apologia,” which is a noun meaning “defense.” In the Greek judicial system, defendants would attempt to 'speak' ('logia') 'away' ('apo') the accusation. I sought to incorporate the very nature of this concept into every single one of my Apol speeches.
I would do this in multiple ways. First, I would present common arguments with regard to whatever topic on which I spoke. For example, in the omnipotence of God issue, I would discuss the dilemma of whether God could create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Under the deity of Christ issue, I would respond to the Muslim’s arguments supporting their belief that Jesus was merely a prophet. I would frequently tie these to either personal (I had a close atheist friend who raised in conversation the Rock Dilemma and a Muslim friend who asked me about Jesus’s deity) or external (I would cite popular or outrageous atheist websites and individuals) examples.
My other tactic was to reference or compare specific religions to my own. For example, when discussing the historical accuracy of the Bible, I would compare it with other religious texts (the Quran, Shadow Book of Wicca, Scientology’s Dianetics, etc.). When discussing the nature of God, I would reveal its significance as compared to other gods (Allah, Shiva, Buddha, the Mormon god, the naturalist’s god, etc.). Atheism reared its ugly head often, but I was careful not discuss atheism generally; rather, I would cite modern leaders in atheism and offer responses to their specific beliefs (i.e., Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” is often considered the bible of modern atheism).
With this approach, I gained an understanding of the framework for other faiths and thus learned how to respond to them using the knowledge I had of my own. This also opened up to me a plethora of resources that I continue to utilize to this very day. In conversations with my agnostic friends at law school, I would explain my beliefs and use the sources I cited in my old speeches when asked a specific question. I spoke to people using the exact 'points' I would use in my six-minute high-school Apol speeches!
As far as competitions go, I remember my final round’s speech at the Regional Championship in 2009. There were two pastors and a published theologian judging my round. My topic was to explain the purpose of man, and I discussed the Christian purpose in contrast to the atheist’s and the Muslim’s, especially as it pertained to the afterlife. All three judges in that room granted me a 'first,' (blessing me with the First Place title at the tournament) and all three mentioned how I was the only one in the room to take full advantage of the event of Apol as a means of learning how to defend one’s faith.
If Apologetics is new on your radar, I encourage you to keep it in your sights and take advantage of it, and to attempt competing in it using my 'apologia' method, or at least something very similar. My only regret is that I only competed in it for one year. "
I really couldn't have said it better myself.
~Kylie~
No comments:
Post a Comment