In short order I e-mailed all of the following people (or posted on their blog):
James Swan, Daniel Phillips, Frank Turk, Phil Johnson, Eric Svendsen, Steve Hays, Jason Engwer, Steve Camp, Colin Smith
the following brief notice (about my letter notifying White of my challenge):
===========================
Just sent the following note:
----------------
Dear James [White],
I have publicly challenged you to a 2 1/2 hour "live chat debate" in your chat room. See:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ames-
white.html
Your brother in Christ,
Dave Armstrong
------------------------------------------
I hope you will be among many who will encourage him to take up my offer.
Yours in Christ,
Dave
Good job Dave!!
Dave,
Would you debate Steve Hays in a written debate if he was willing to do so?
Great going, Dave!
I thought from your prior post that you would actually cease your efforts as regards J. White!
Also, do you really think it was necessary to remove those papers that addressed anti-Catholicism?
This might have actually helped others out there; furthermore, it may prove informative for those who may naively come under the influence of such folks.
Also, do you really think it was necessary to remove those papers that addressed anti-Catholicism?
I'm determined to focus on the apologetic issues, not persons, and all the stupid, unproductive, sometimes-sinful personal squabbles.
At times, one cannot avoid that altogether, because of the almost invariably uncharitable attitudes of the anti-Catholics. E.g., I still have listed all of White's "refutations" of my book, The Catholic Verses, but shortly into the course of that series of replies (about as predictable as breathing or taxes), he launched into severe personal attack. It's an entire series, so I have to present it as such. At the time, I simply stopped cold and stopped participating, because he had made it entirely personal. And of course, that, to him, was me being "scared" and "running."
In this very paper, I have to record how he responded and say a few words about it, just for the sake of the record. I can't avoid the "personal" entirely, because again, he has brought it down to that low level. I must record how exactly he went about declining my offer. after this, I simply move on again, and refute some more of his papers, getting back to substance and theology again.
But even here, in the face of severe personal attack, I haven't defended myself. I've turned the other cheek, I think. There is no need, anyway, even if I felt that I needed or wanted to. The accusations are entirely ridiculous.
Re: possibly debating Steve Hays.
He has already turned me down in a debate challenge. A while back he accused me of being scared and unable to debate him. I replied that I had been abiding by a personal resolution to not debate anti-Catholics, for reasons stated in great detail.
I then wrote a paper explaining how it is not necessarily the case that one who refuses to debate someone else is doing so because of inability or fear. I asked him to overthrow my reasoning, if he thought he could, but he refused, on grounds that I was a mere sophist.
After that I have not been much impressed with his intellectual prowess. Indeed, I regard him as very much a sophist also, but that is beside the point: a man ought to be willing to back up his contentions, especially if they are of a serious accusatory nature, as his were.
Secondly, even if I did decide to take him on, on some issue, it would be after White was convinced by his cronies to debate me, as suggested. And that is because most of these leading Internet anti-Catholics know and support each other. It's like a little club. I refuse to play their game. White has to be made to realize that he has to fight his own battles. I've been trying to get him to do so for 12 years (as of this April). If I go and debate Hays instead, then this lets White off the hook: someone else is again fighting his battles for him and covering for his intellectual cowardice and gross, repeated double standards in the area of debate. Hays would first need to persuade White that he has to live up to his own triumphalistic rhetoric of supposed unvanquishability.
Moreover, he would have to state whether he agreed with White's assessment of me in his letter declining my challenge or not. If he did, then why would he possibly want to debate me? Who wants to take on an ignoramus and an imbecile? Is it a credit to the heavyweight champion of the world if he decided that his next big bout will be with a 98-pound weakling?
So If Hays agreed with White about that, a debate with him would be meaningless, on the same grounds that White lays out. If he, on the other hand, disagreed, I would argue that he ought to encourage White to debate me rather than run from me. First things first. THEN perhaps a debate with Hays could be arranged.
But there is another problem, too. Hays is interesting in that he repeats this line of rubbish about apologists like myself not truly representing the "real" Catholic Church, which he considers quite liberal. We're simply pretenders and converted-Protestants-in-disguise, out of touch with our own Church (that he, of course, knows more about than we do). He has maintained this repeatedly on his blog.
That makes a sensible, constructive debate quite impossible, because the Catholic apologist would, in effect, have to acknowledge from the outset that his enterprise is essentially a deceptive, duplicitous one. Since Hays fancies that I have no business speaking for the Church, and
(cont.)
. . . cannot do so accurately anyway, what would be the point of a "debate"?
Fundamental to an apologist's work is the notion that what he is defending, is actually the belief-system of the Church he adheres to and advocates. Hays denies this, so intelligent discussion about Catholicism is well-nigh impossible.
And that also makes much (if not most) of his anti-Catholic rhetoric quite beside the point, as it is directed towards a straw man of his own making.
Here is a comment from someone (conveniently anonymous) on Steve Hays' blog that will, no doubt, be typical of the anti-Catholic spin on this:
-----------------
MasterJedi said...
I've seen this "challenge" posted on other Evangelical Web Blogs as well. It seems as though DA wants everyone to know he is down for a good ole fashioned internet live chat squabble, exciting indeed. It also seems pretty obvious he doesn't quite expect Dr. White to engage in this format, but wants everyone in the E-World to know of his brute confidence and brashness to engage Dr. White via E-Spattle, so if Dr. White does not entertain him (which I personally doubt he will engage in this semi-fruitless format),
[I replied: "If that is so, then why does he have at least four debates of this sort posted on his own website? In fact, he and I did this before for a short time, on 29 December 2000. It's just a cop-out. He does this and he does written debates or 'exchanges' or 'refutations' (dozens posted on his site), in addition to his fabled oral debates."]
DA looks like an E-Hero to all the onlookers - to which I am not surprised at all. A simple private email to Dr. White alone would've revealed a sincere desire to engage in an E-Spattle Battle, but DA needs to let EVERYONE know of his "challenge" simply to elevate himself in the minds of the RC Apologetic world, as a Super E*pologist. Why not engage in a scholarly, professional, moderated, public, formatted, audio/visual debate with Dr. White? All around it profits everyone involved - especially the laypeople. The benefit of having a DVD to watch, examine, listen to, re-watch, distribute, etc., over an E-script printed on paper or read online is not even in the same league as the public debate. The differences between the two "debate" (if you want to call it that) formats is like the WNBA vs. NBA.
I honestly suspect the reason DA avoids Dr. White in a formal debate is somewhat obvious. If his arguments are made to look foolish, (like many of the opponenets participating in Dr. White's debates) it will devestate his reputation as a RC E-pologist. Peter Stravinskas (as seen on the YouTube clips) is a great example of this, and DA certainly doesn't want to be seen in that fashion at all. The fact that some debates with Dr. White have been withheld from public viewing speaks volumes of the performances of his opponents and a good reason NOT to debate Dr. White in this format.
3/06/2007 8:18 AM
https://www2.blogger.com/
comment....766523958730840
Also, I knew much would be made of my recent appearance in White's chat room, so I was careful to make a copy of (most of) the transcript, to be able to appeal to facts once the revisionist history of what actually happened started to be promulgated by White and his yes men comrades. I just knew that White would later on (after the utterly predictable ban that happened the very next day) claim that I was trying to disrupt things, put him down, lead people astray, bring about a ruckus and chaos, and so forth. The truth, of course, is quite otherwise.
Several of the others, including one of the ops, commented that I was behaving quite cordially. I returned the compliment several times. I was specifically invited back. Several people (who knew of my name) seemed pleased to get to talk to me personally. Several wanted to make it clear that their opposition to Catholicism was not personal, but theological (yet look how White has again acted). I carefully answered three long lines of questioning. I joked around; I showed pictures of my family. I said more than once that I simply wanted to show everyone that I was a human being, not an ogre or a moron, as I had been portrayed by anti-Catholics. Real wicked, divisive stuff, wasn't it?
While my Catholic beliefs were being grilled, I said terrible, intolerant, "anti-Protestant" things like:
"I would say Luther or Calvin could possibly be saved, but they would have to be truly ignorant of many Catholic doctrines. They certainly show that they are that, so I have great hope for them. 
In fact, in one fictional dialogue, I had Luther in heaven. God is very merciful. I routinely assume that most of my Protestant brothers and sisters will be saved, because they are sincerely following Jesus to the best of their lights, for the most part. At least those who are serious disciples, etc."
After several hours chatting, I remarked:
"I have enjoyed myself. People have been very cordial. I must say I am impressed."
One of the nice people with whom I had some good discussion said he was happy I came by (and later invited me back).
In light of my subsequent treatment and ridiculous banning for no reason, I shall post the short exchange I had with White ("DrOakley"):
JW: I'll take seriously your "I'm going to be a nice guy" stuff, DA, when you stop playing games with pictures of yours truly. I've obviously missed the "why I came to your channel" explanation...perhaps it could be reposted?
DA: Hi James!!! I'll remove your pictures if you remove the caricature of me supposedly as a wicked person who desires others to be physically harmed. Deal? [I] just got in the mood. I haven't done live discussion for so long. It's been fun. I was also impressed by some of your debate vignettes. You have improved through the years!
JW: Angel has his own blog and has his materials posted there.
[they continue to be posted on White's blog, too. I linked to both caricatures in my main post]
Beyond that, am I supposed to see a parallel between a professional artist's caricatures and your fascination with my face and all the various permutations thereof you have on your site?
DA: I haven't said that you literally hated . . .
(cont.)
. . . people, have I? All I did was play around with colors or dimensions. Big wow. Why is this so offensive to you?
DA: You have raved about me as an absolute ignoramus on your webcast. And you object to adding weird colors to a picture?
DA: let's have a little perspective here!
JW: If I posted such inane pictures of any RC apologist, I would be torn asunder for it. To be honest, looking at your site earlier this evening, you stuck me as a stalker.
DA: so if you remove the caricature of me I'll remove your colored pictures. Goose and gander. I just refuse to bow to an unfair double standard.
JW: I see you haven't changed one wit.
DA: I would laugh at it. It's nothing compared to your caricature of Pat Madrid being stoned to death.
DA: nor have you. but we can only try!
* DrOakley shakes his head.
[ . . . ]
JW: Yeah. Well, you all have fun spinning the Catholic apologist in circles. If [name] hadn't sent a note to my Blackberry a while back I wouldn't have even bothered to look in
here.
DA: [not yet realizing White had already left] hey, I've had a great time here tonight. I was treated very kindly, and we had a good, constructive conversation, I thought. I commend you for having such a friendly forum. It's better in that regard than many Catholic ones I know of.
[ . . . ]
DA: . . . I have complimented James several times. I've commended the behavior of the people here.
[e.g., someone asked me straight out if I thought James White was a "nice" person. I said I didn't know him personally, but he seemed like he is probably a nice guy, and he had great kids and a great family.]
Could the contrast of attitudes be any greater than it is?
Dave,
I'm the same person who said "Good job Dave!!" above, however you reason for not debating Steve does not make any sense. Here is part of your reasoning:
"Secondly, even if I did decide to take him on, on some issue, it would be after White was convinced by his cronies to debate me, as suggested. "
You can't be serious? Steve Hays has no responsibility or authority to convince Dr White to debate you. You are attempt to link everyone to Dr White seems to be a ploy on your part that is not convincing at all. Methinks you don't want to deal with Hays
It makes all the sense in the world. White wants to use any excuse to avoid debating me and following through when I critique his stuff. That would include saying, "well see, Hays is debating Armstrong; I have better things to do."
I gave several reasons (all perfectly valid). If you (or Hays) wish to dispute them, then you are free to do so. White is the one I am most interested in, because he is the biggest hypocrite in debate matters. He's the one who has run from my arguments for nearly 12 years (I have only heard of Hays in the last 2-3 years). He is the one who needs to defend his first premises (most of all, that Catholicism isn't Christian). But he won't do so.
So folks who would prefer to see White have the courage of his convictions ought to press him to exhibit that. Instead, we will get this subterfuge of trying to switch it over to Hays as the Great Champion and hope that people will forget White's cowardice and extreme double standards.
I don't know who you are, so why should I even take you seriously, if you insist on hiding behind the "anonymous" badge? For all I know, you're just playing games.
The whole controversy will blow over in a day or two. If white had taken me up, it would be all over the anti-Catholic blogs, but since he has declined, they will try to pretend like it never happened. And I will go back to my usual apologetic work, having amply proven my point that White can't defend his ultimate commitments: at least not with folks who know his modus operandi and arguments (real or supposed) very well by now.
Your credibility rating is 0.0. You are all verbiage, zero substance.
Speak for yourself, James. Have you taken a good look at yourself in the mirror lately? If not, I suggest you do.
Does he think that his comments are persuasive? He writes, “Your credibility rating is 0.0. You are all verbiage, zero substance. What is more, given your obsession with me, your playing with photos, even posting pictures from my blog recently, I consider you a stalker, nothing more.” Contrast his comments with these words from Scott Hahn. Scott Hahn writes, “The field of Catholic apologetics has yielded an abundant harvest in the last generation. I will not try to duplicate the efforts of authors whose apologetic skills far exceed my own. I stand in awe of their achievements,
(cont.)
…Hahn continues… and I urge you to get to know their work: James Akin, Dave Armstrong, Jeff Cavins, David Currie, George Duggan, Joseph C. Fenton, Marcus Grodi, Father John Hardon, S.J., Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Peter Kreeft, Patrick Madrid, Rosalind Moss, Stephen Ray, Alan Schreck, David Scott, Mark Shea, Tim Staples, and Father William Most. They are worthy successors to the ancient apologists, and I invoke their names with admiration, but also with the affection of longstanding friendship . . . When you read the works of these authors, you see the sort of apologetics St. Peter was talking about - apologetics that draws its strength from theology, that is dependent on theology, and that inspires us to pursue theology with a ravenous desire. That's what their work has done for me, and that's why I'm writing this work for you.” You are simply trying to debate his views.
A 2 and half hour "live chat"- now that will draw a fury of excitement, i'm sure!
It's a spectacular contrast, isn't it, Kyl? I'm trying to talk sensibly like human beings, minus the insults, over on Steve Hays' blog. We'll see if it is possible.
I was doing the same thing in White's chat room before he booted me out.
White also stated in an e-mail that he would not be willing to even do a live oral debate on the same topic:
Dave (3-8-07: 8:08 PM):
Hi James,
What would you think about doing a live, oral, in-person debate on the same topic (What is a Christian? / Are Catholics Christian?), with the same mutual cross-examination format (and with you getting a half-hour more than I do: 90 minutes to my 60)?
In Him,
Dave
===================
3-8-20: 11:32 PM
Mr. Armstrong, even if I were to take your sudden change of mind seriously, given that you have done about-faces so many times those observing you are dizzy, what would keep you from doing yet another "I pledge to never talk to James White/anti-Catholics ever again" routine a month before, or a week before, such a debate?
Please do not be so utterly arrogant as to offer me more time. Do you seriously think yourself a better debater than Matatics or Sungenis or Madrid or Pacwa, etc.? Amazing!
The thesis statement you suggest is so vague as to defy examination. We debate specifics. You know, like Papal Infallibility, Marian dogmas, the Mass, that kind of thing.
But, of course, there were, at one point, many pages of "why public debate is silly" articles on your website. Are they still there?
In any case, it is hard to take your e-mail seriously. I suspect ulterior, and less-than-useful, motives.
James>>>
----------------
Dave (3-9-07: 12:39 AM)
Hi James,
So am I to take this to mean that you wouldn't be willing to do such a debate?
Your brother in Christ & His Church,
Dave
----------------
[no reply]
The basic motivation of Mr. Armstrong throughout these sort of discussions, seems to be very sparsely composed of what one might term a selfless pouring out of love in the spirit of Christ. Instead, pettiness and insecurity floods his words; as if old comments of White's still ring in his ears, and as if the pain has been hidden and now manifests itself as an obsessive neurosis. Is this what apologetics should be founded upon? Cheap and crass uprisings of the ego? One intellect attempting to usurp another? Hm. Christianity is in a dangerous position in the modern world, and one would hope Christians - devotees of the spiritual enlightenment found in the agape of the Father - would find in their hearts to wisdom to more adequately deal with the challenges of these dark days.
Commenting by HaloScan
