One of my great pet peeves is that many times and almost without exception when a talk, lecture, or debates occur, what happens here and elsewhere, instead of the things that they have said come under scrutiny, the speakers are examined instead. I invite everyone to both examine the topics and how they are covered looking at the things that are said without attempting to deep dive in the person speaking.
The other thing I would love to see in our talks is for everyone to post links that support their points of view that they are willing to defend with questions concerning what is said, NOT the people saying them.
So debates, lectures, even sermons I don't care, if the talk supports one view over the other let the subject, not the person be where we go, is that possible, or does who someone is mean more to you than what they say?
One of my great pet peeves is that many times and almost without exception when a talk, lecture, or debates occur, what happens here and elsewhere, instead of the things that they have said come under scrutiny, the speakers are examined instead. I invite everyone to both examine the topics and how they are covered looking at the things that are said without attempting to deep dive in the person speaking.
The other thing I would love to see in our talks is for everyone to post links that support their points of view that they are willing to defend with questions concerning what is said, NOT the people saying them.
So debates, lectures, even sermons I don't care, if the talk supports one view over the other let the subject, not the person be where we go, is that possible, or does who someone is mean more to you than what they say?