Interesting thoughts. Maybe I should have said "trained to debate".
There is a difference and so I thank Farkel for bringing out the semantics part of this. Typically, when 2 family members for example get upset and yell, they don't call that a debate, but an argument, though little arguing is done. Arguing is defined as presenting reasons for or against. To debate is the act of participating in a discussion with another person, likely an opponent of your view, regarding a subject.
The reason why I quoted Huxley before was because both JW's and Society at large really like getting style points for being loud and proud. But as Farkel pointed out, arguing a point in a debate for a "win" is to simply get your facts right, esp if there is only one position that is actually factual.
For JW's, its really simple, and they can debate this all they want, but they can't argue their way out of it.
- What were they teaching about 1914 when 1914 came?
- Did they or did they not use the measurement of pyramids as a primary source to back up their latest date for the rapture, 1914?
- Can a "prophet" continually change dates, have nothing happen on those dates that they implied, and still be considered a prophet? Yes or no?
- If Jehovah and Jesus chose this rag tag bunch in 1919, why did they pin all their hopes of millions never dying on the year 1925 and say that faithful men of old would be resurrected?
- Who is accountable, and who is culpable, for the dates and teachings, such as the generation of Mt 24, 1914, 1925, 1975?
You could go on and on with this. Questions with real answers don't lie. If a JW got into a discussion like this, after looking to see which exit doors he/she was closest to, their goal wouldn't be to answer the question, it would be to present their own canned question. The key to winning the debate with any JW lies in not allowing them to engage in their best strategy, changing the subject.