Weaver vs. Hubner: Apologetics Debate Canceled

Today I received an email from Christopher Weaver, which essentially changed the debate terms that we had agreed to on May 10. In short, Weaver refuses to participate in a debate where it can be recorded and distributed in public (of course, we’ve seen what happened the last time someone tried to release a recording of Weaver – lawsuit threat after lawsuit threat). The only situation where Weaver is willing to let the recorded debate be available to the public is with his written consent after the debate as taken place. In other words, Weaver is saying, If I do a bad job, you can’t release the debate to the public, or I might sue you.

I obviously have no interest in doing a debate that may not be made available to God’s people like this (what benefit would it be?), nor do I have time to deal with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be utterly childish in the presence of others time and again. In fact, Weaver has started putting a legal disclaimer at the bottom of every email he writes, essentially threatening to sue anyone who mentions anything in any email he writes. For a self-proclaimed Christian, this is an odd way of building up the Body and seeking the Kingdom.

Thus, the debate is canceled. Maybe changing the terms at the last minute is the way Weaver does debates at Rutgers or Chicago University. I really don’t know. But, that’s not the way we do things at RealApologetics.org.

Weaver has already been blocked out of numerous Christian websites and online organizations, and RealApologetics.org is unashamedly one of them. I encourage everyone: avoid Christopher Weaver at all costs. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Respond to anything he says, and you will regret it – which, sadly, is evidently his final goal.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. – Prov. 26:4

In Case You Were Wondering: Further Info

Lest people think I’m a mean and nasty person, this is a brief chronology of events.

From May 7-May 8, Weaver proposed a debate on apologetic method. I obviously tried to know who he actually was in real life (he’s appeared in numerous chat channels under different names, and doesn’t talk about his Christian faith in public) before saying yes. After he pointed me to some of his publications, we worked out the debate question, and he again asked if I wanted to debate. My reply on May 10th was the following:

Yes, we can.
As with all my debates, they obviously require sufficient preparation time (minimum of three months), an equal period of cross examination (direct Q and A), and must be recorded and made available to the public via mp3 download (through my website, realapologetics.org, and possibly the realapologetics youtube channel). Assuming you have no problem with that, or a problem with the debate taking place over Skype with a moderator, I suggest the following format:

I then listed the format. 2 minutes later, Weaver sent the following (Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:53 PM):

I think 3months is way too much time. I’ll be worried about more important things by then.

How about setting a date during the month of July?

I think we need at least two rounds of rebuttals. Everything else looks good.

I think we need a neutral moderator (someone neither known by me, or by you).

Again, everything else looks good.

Chris

We then worked out the debate terms and question, as well as the moderator. Weaver was clear in his position, saying “I want a moderator who doesn’t know any of us who is a Theology or Philosophy majore,” and “It is more probably and more likely that a PhD student in Philosophy who has moderated debates in the past and has had experience on a debate team…and who is an Atheist, or Agnostic will be completely unbiased.”

I obviously didn’t agree with that! I don’t know how any Christian can refer to an atheist as being unbiased with matters pertaining to Christianity. Regardless, we eventually settled on the debate format, time, and moderator. Nothing about recording the debate and making it available to the public was an issue.

But then Weaver debated (via skype call) an 18 year old on the morality of gay sex (no connection with realapologetics.org or myself). Apparently, the debate wasn’t supposed to be recorded, but it was (I’m guessing by cronies at Urban Philosophy, but no one knows for sure), and it was leaked on the internet with an anonymous remote server. At the same time, Weaver had gotten kicked out of the prosapologian and apologetics IRC chat channels multiple times (I’m an operator there, so I know that). He then began spamming the RealApologetics.org blog, and was consequently banned. Then, Weaver began making several lawsuit threats about the leaked debate. He also started (as mentioned before) putting a legal disclaimer at the bottom of every email he sent (I would copy and paste it just to show its absurdity, but apparently I would be putting myself at risk even to do that!)

The debate was still scheduled between him and I for August during this ordeal. But, after learning about the leaked debate and receiving some of his own threats in my inbox, I decided it would be wise to revisit the debate terms to “cover my hide” in a sense, and make sure we’re still on the same page.

So I wrote him an email July 1st to ensure that he still agreed to these basic terms of record-and-release. In his reply (today), he re-wrote the terms in his own words, essentially requiring his direct consent for the release of the debate after it was recorded. In other words, Weaver is saying, If I do a bad job, you can’t release the debate to the public, or I might sue you. I obviously have no interest in doing a debate that may not be made available to God’s people like this, nor do I have time to deal with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be utterly childish in the presence of others, time and again. So I canceled the debate in the first portion of this post, July 11, 2010.