Rameus

(by Vork)
I appreciate your thoughts Vork, but in four years I will hold three graduate degrees in fields highly related to the subject matter; whereas Holding is a library scientist. If he soundly defeats me, then I have no business getting a Ph.D.

From reading his essay on Tacitus it is quite clear to me that the man truly has absolutely no idea what he is attempting to write about. As you said he appears to have read "narrowly but deeply", and as such I will expose his almost total lack of understanding of these two ancient authors and the contributions they [allegedly] make to the case for a historical Jesus Christ personage.

This may sound like the howling of an alpha male canis lupis, but I assure you the man is dead in round one when I make my submission towards the end of the month.

Rameus

Vivisector

As another holder of multiple graduate degrees (in a different field), I can tell you that - as is very often the case - being right is sometimes secondary to how you make your case. This being the situation, I have to say, "What Vork said." Go into it with realistic expectations, playing to those who might be on the bubble, and with no hope of unanimous acclamation as the victor.

I consider Turkel to be some of the best available evidence for life's emergence from the primordial smuck, so I hope you're successful, and that your Kung Fu is better than his. As someone who's had the character-building experience of having his ass handed to him in an analogous setting, though, I've adopted the philosophy of woofing less and writing more

WinAce

Witty? I wouldn't say that. He is, however so arrogant that everyone capable of handing him his ass on a platter eventually gives up and doesn't bother. Short of posturing, there's not alot of reason to debate his ilk in the first place: if you're in it for the adrenaline rush, you'll get bored of it eventually (like I did); and if you're in it for the academic interest (as I still am) you'll want to get the arguments themselves, devoid of outrageously impolite personal commentary and additional fallacies.

You're going to face an uphill, unrewarding task... but perhaps, if you persevere without sinking to his level of schoolyard name-calling or mocking, and know the material--and more importantly, rhetoric--enough to explain how he's wrong in a way his audience will understand, you'll win the debate. Good luck.

Personally, I'd suggest engaging the arguments, not the apologists. You'll stay saner that way.