Dr. John Sanders Debates Review, and a Barna Survey

And welcome to the dividing line on a Friday evening. It is an unusual time for us to do a dividing line, of course. But again, we are trying to make those folks who for some reason like to listen to this Zany little webcast a happy even though my flight tomorrow to Dallas Requires that I be gone by the time we normally get started not only by a couple hours but we're gonna miss our regular time and rather than get everybody messed up as far as Don't keep taking it up there get everybody messed up as far as timing goes we would rather just get the program taking care of this evening and we can do so and get up on the web and those of you who are Listening in live the few of you in the channel you get to participate this evening.

Yes, indeed, of course most of the folks in the channel never do that, but who knows maybe it'll work out this evening don't know. Basically tonight. We want to report on what took place over this past weekend and Then also there is a new survey out that I want to take a look at that.

Nothing overly shocking in it but it certainly does give us a snapshot of a lot of evangelical churches today, which explains a lot of stuff that we have to do on a regular basis and It's a pretty sad some of the stuff that we've we've got in the survey.

The Florida Debates with Dr. John Sanders

Anyways, as most of you know who follow the program fairly regularly last weekend Friday night and Saturday Night of last weekend this for those of you listening to archived programs would be November 1st and 2nd of the year 2002 we had debates in Florida.

Specifically I.

Think the first night. I wasn't actually Tampa's Clearwater in Clearwater, Florida right next door to that or maybe Palm Harbor somewhere around there. I have yet to really figure out the Relationship of all the suburbs in the Tampa area, but anyways, we had a debate Friday night at a place called the grind Gr. Ind and it's not because they sell coffee though they do.

And in fact at one point during the cross-examination my opponent my opponent had a lot of sort of quiet times some what we call in radio dead air and Where he wasn't saying anything and and it would you know those awkward silences That donkey told Shrek about at one point you know what I mean and.

Right.

In the middle of one of those this was right after the break someone back at the. Well, it's not really a snack bar, but you could buy snacks and cokes and things like that so I guess it makes it a snack bar, but they also had a latte machine and So right is it's perfectly quiet you hear as somebody froths up one of those Disgusting coffee drinks.

You can tell I'm not a coffee drinker. But anyways, it smells. All right, but I just can't stand taste. But anyways, and yeah, I both started laughing and also, and I realized people watching this in the video are gonna wonder why in the world he and I are laughing and so I sort of broke in and explained for the sake of the audio and the video Why we were laughing and because I'm I sort of doubt that particular sound made it all the way to the to the tape.

I don't know.

So anyways It was sort of funny. It's it's a youth place. It's a high school type youth place and it was a really very excellent place for a debate because the you know, the stage was the right size and the audience was nice and close and the folks there cooperated greatly with us as far as Getting stuff set up set up was easy and I think it's gonna look really good on the video and This was the debate on Inclusivism and of course, I'm assuming everybody knows but I guess I shouldn't assume this that my opponent was dr. John Sanders from I believe it's Huntington College and Dr. Sanders has written a number of books and the two books that were the most important I would say that resulted in his being asked to participate in these debates.

Was one book that he wrote on the subject of inclusivism the concept that Salvation is only in Jesus Christ. However people can be saved without a conscious knowledge of who Jesus Christ is that a a positive faith move toward God whether that be on the part of a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Hindu or Any pagan in the in the outback someplace?

That that positive move toward God is going to bring them eternal life and that they're gonna be saved but they're gonna be saved by Jesus Christ and that is the subject of a book that he wrote on that particular subject and I repeated myself them and Looking around trying to see where I put those things.

Oh, they're still inside of a bag I can't get to him and then his other book The God Who Risks on the subject of open theism and so dr. Sanders is one of the two main leading proponents of both inclusivism and open theism.

PhD professor scholar. He presented papers at ETS last year in defense of his position. If you go to the June 2002 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society You will see Individuals there.

Dr. Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary. Clark Pinnock. Gregory Boyd. John Sanders. Bruce where presents his view of why open theists should be excluded from the ranks of evangelicals. Each of the three respond then where Has a rejoinder to their responses.

Very good reading very important reading. You can get that edition from the Journal of the Event Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. I think it's seven bucks. Anyways so obviously there are only.

Well, there's only really one other person we could have gone to To do both debates that would have been Clark Pinnock. He was contacted did not respond to us. We could have gone to Gregory Boyd at least for open theism.

I'm not sure exactly where he stands on the subject of inclusivism. I think he's more of a mainline Armenian at that point but We certainly you know over the past number of debates we've had over the past well, it's only been what six six weeks.

Five weeks six weeks since we also had a debate with Martin Tanner in Salt Lake City. We certainly have sought To have the best representatives of the position that that we can find and And Yet in these three debates, I think it's fairly clear that the positions that we were debating did not fare very well as far as being able to present a meaningful and solid defense of their of their position and so What happened Friday night was it was well There's probably one reason why almost anyone's going to want to make sure to get the video of the inclusivism debate and that is because it was at a at a more.

Youthy.

Informal venue. Then we were asked to be Informal in our dress and so this is the first time I've engaged a scholarly debate. And it was a scholarly debate in the sense that We had all the time Constraints in in place and so on and so forth.

I.

Did not have a tie on and Actually that did happen one other time that was in 1992 in Omaha and those were not videotaped. So there's no actual Video evidence that I did not wear a tie that night. But it was so stinking cold up there in Omaha in November of 1992 That the second night I wore a sweater a warm sweater.

Rather than something that said it just didn't go with a tie type situation. So I didn't wear a tie or maybe yeah, and I think about I may have had a tie underneath it. Well anyways so so instead I You know, I heard the name of this place the grind it's gonna be a youth place.

I'm assuming there's gonna be youth folks and So I came prepared to to fit in and so you're gonna want to get the videos because I did this debate wearing well, actually, I'm wearing the same shirt right now a cobalt blue Oakley t-shirt and it's sort of got a mock turtleneck.

It's not a full turtleneck, but it's got the Oakley icon on it and a pair of Old Navy painters pants and Oakley pit boots and an Oakley watch and I had my Ice blue X metals on the desk next to me. I looked like I worked at this place I mean I was surprised people didn't come out to me and ask, you know for directions the bathroom or to open up a door For him or something along those lines because I really looked like I worked there and of course, dr. Sanders wore khaki slacks and an open-collar dress shirt.

Just just had never been that context before. I don't think so. Anyways, oh by the way, all of you in the chat channel who have been just hammering me about the fact that these debates are Not yet available in mp3.

Okay. Now the person to talk to is in channel. Talk to him. Okay I expect to see just as much grief as has been laid on my head for the past three days aimed toward you know who as as you know, okay, so let's let's just Be fair here cuz that's that's not part of what I do.

Okay, you know, I did the debate somebody else Makes it digital, you know what? I mean? Okay. Anyways, so.

It was.

It was a it was an interesting debate. Dr. Sanders started and these were the first two Debates that dr. Sanders has done. I was not aware of that. And let's just face it. Dr. Sanders was not comfortable the first night.

I don't know if it was just this was the first debate that he had done. I don't know if it was due to the fact of where we were that he felt uncomfortable at a tie-on, I don't know what it was, but anyone those the folks that went.

Simon Escobedo. Warren Smith. Simon brought his daughter Abigail. Abigail worked very hard in helping us to set up that first night, especially. We had to tape the cords down for all the cameras and stuff and she was doing all that stuff and and they did a wonderful job, but Both Simon and and Warren have commented on the fact that it was like two different.

Two different dr. Sanders's because the first night. The opening statements in very soft-spoken. Lots of pauses. And not the pauses not not a pause where you're trying to you know. You've just made a big point and you're letting it sink in.

I mean pauses where you're looking at your notes sort of like oh, where was I? Well, what do I want to talk about next? Here's a point we can talk about and and you sort of just go over there and you talk about that a little bit then you go over here and talk about and.

It just wasn't a really scintillating presentation. And of course, I got up there and and I had my 15. We only had 15 minute opening statements. And so I was you know presenting some some truths about salvation and the purpose of God and and of course Dr. Sanders is one of the one of those types of folks who says yes.

I am an Arminian. He is not like Norman Geisler who is an Arminian but doesn't want to be called Arminian. He's not like Adrian Rogers. Well, I'm not any of these things just no I'm an Arminian. That's that's the theological perspective I come from those are my presuppositions and so on so forth and so.

It was very clear from the beginning where our differences were going to be focusing and as we then had the rebuttal period we then we took a break and then we had a question and answer and. This this was at least consistent over the two debates.

The.

It was very clear to me and I I understand this I went to a seminary one of the seminaries I've gone to was Way way to my left Theologically and so at the time I wasn't completely certain why the Lord put me in that situation.

Where I had to go to a seminary that was I was constantly having to fight as far as my beliefs and things like that now, I know in hindsight why it was but I Understand the mindset that was his and in essence When he tried to respond to what I had said from John chapter 6 I presented John 6 37 all the father gives me will come to me and Tried to contrast that with the idea that in inclusivism The father brings many people to eternal life, but he does not Bring them to Christ.

They don't find out who their Savior is until after death. And that the context of John 6 is not after death. It's in this life and it and basically I was saying this needs to be explained and So in the rebuttals, he basically said and of course and he's looking at his written notes.

He goes. And then the stuff of John 6. Well, you know, that's the old Calvinism Arminian debate. We're at loggerheads about that and he went on from there. That was it. Now, of course, that was the Center part of my presentation.

And it was dismissed well, we're at loggerheads on that and I hadn't been given any Response any exegesis. It's just like yeah, well, you know Calvinist Armenians disagree about things like that so we got in the cross-examination period in the second half the debate and I I was asking him questions and and I was trying to.

You know We had two debates to do and I wanted to make sure the second one took place because the second one is scheduled Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando the next night and and so I I you know kept it kept things very focused and and very pleasant as much as I possibly could given the subject that we were addressing and.

So I I asked him at one point during the cross-examination I said well You know, are you saying that the Bible is not sufficient? To answer this issue and he had said in his opening statement I don't believe the Bible even addresses this issue in his opening statement.

He said the Bible is not answer this question and The next night he basically said similar things that from his perspective. This is just you you make your starting assumptions Arminian Calvinist, you know, so on so forth and those assumptions really can't be decided.

There's there's really no truth one way or the other on that you just you just make your you start someplace and you go from There and then you compare things and it's not like the Bible is actually sufficient To answer the question as to whether any of these things are right.

That's the perspective. That that that dr. Sandra has held and it became very very clear. Especially the second night and so during the cross-examination. I asked him. Well, then what does John 637 mean?

And I'll never forget this there. There's normally in in each debate. There's sort of a defining moment. That sticks in my mind and and that as I think back over the debate itself I recall that particular moment and I can remember where I was sitting or standing or you know Whatever the situation might be a couple weeks ago with Martin Tanner.

I it's when I asked him about Psalm 82 and He he said well, I've not looked at the context seems like okay. All right, you know I just remember what sort of what the what the platform looked like and what I was doing at that time and and In the first debate with dr. Sanders.

I said so what is John 637 mean? And here I look over at a man who teaches religion and philosophy PhD he opens his Bible up and he's turning to it and he's like well, I. And he gets there and he sort of pauses.

He looks at looks at well you know, I I really haven't done much work on this passage actually and. And it's silent and I'm like, I mean I'm getting uncomfortable. Because I can very much tell that he's uncomfortable and of course I can feel both Warren and Simon's eyes Burrowing into my my head.

Because they're going Haven't done much work on this passage. I You know from our perspective and and this again, this is here's this illustrates the difference in perspective from our perspective. This passage is central and vital and if you're gonna take a an Arminian position.

Then you're obviously going to Have studied the key texts before you adopted your position, but you see that's not how it works Outside of conservative circles because those conservative circles don't believe that the Bible really is fundamentally the final authority in all things or that it has the ability to decide such things and.

So from his perspective, well, you know, I've adopted the Arminian perspective. So I There are certain passages that are seem to be amenable to the reform perspective, but that's not where I start so it's really not that's really not the issue and.

So I basically had to Abandon the question. I literally had to say well, you know I'm not gonna ask you to give an answer to something you've not looked at because the point had already been made I mean to anyone who's trying to follow this.

Just my sitting there and forcing him to come up with something that he really hadn't looked at would be Irrelevant, but the point had been made to everybody else and that is here's someone who's adopted the Arminian position, but they have no answer.

For some of the key texts that present these truths.

It was.

It was amazing it truly truly was and so When the debate was all over I got to meet a bunch of folks that I've Have you know listen to the dividing line regularly a bunch of folks come to me young folks at Clearwater Christian College and Places around there in the Florida area that listened to the the dividing line got to meet bunches of night and really neat people nice folks and and Only I'd only talked to one person that had any questions about what I had had to say at all And I was a little concerned I wanted to make sure no hothead Calvinists, and there are such thing as hothead Calvinists.

We're going to jump all over dr. Sanders who just Obviously has never been in this position before you know I have I'll never forget the little Roman Catholic nun that chased me around the Plumber auditorium in Fullerton back in the mid 90s during the break Shaking your rosary at me going you need to pray to Mary you need to pray to Mary.

You know I've I've you know been there done that got the t-shirt and That kind of thing doesn't bother me, but I could tell that this guy that type of a Encounter and one of the question a couple of questions that were asked during the question-answer period.

We're a little bit rough a little bit gruff and you know, but Dr.. Sanders handled that okay, and so anyways it was a very very Interesting debate and Hopefully those who start considering inclusivism will find it to be to be useful, and we'll be able to get that from us.

Well the the next evening what happened the next evening is that we had to go from Tampa to Orlando? which is a little bit of a drive and and so we left in the morning and Didn't take quite enough vehicles.

We were just too packed.

In fact.

Some of our more memorable personal Remembrances of the trip are due to things that took place after the second debate on the way back. Which included Poor Warren and Simon and Abigail having to sit in the back of a passenger car with the equipment and Luggage stacked on top of them all the way from Tampa to Orlando.

They could not move it was it was a Little rough because we could have used one more car. It would have just worked out a little bit better, but anyways we we drove down to Orlando stayed With some friends there at Orlando at their at their home during the afternoon that went over to to RTS.

Dr. Sanders did play basketball with the some of the folks there that afternoon and Demonstrated that he is a very very good basketball player. He's not tall but he is as fast as greased lightning and Excellent excellent basketball player, so I'm not sure what that means, but anyways.

So we anyways we went to RTS and RTS in Orlando has a new Chapel and it was very nice Chapel facility. Nothing was set up yet. And it took a little while to get things set up at least I had to help put things up our guys got our stuff up pretty quickly, but we had to sort of start from scratch got everything set up and Unfortunately the air conditioning wasn't on the air conditioning didn't come on till the break.

So you will notice that we're all dressed nicely in suit coats for the first half of the debate. And then we're down to the coats disappeared during the break as we were about ready to melt up there. So we take the jackets off right as the air conditioning started up so anyways, but Disappointing crowd I'll be perfectly honest with you.

We we hoped to have a Packed house, it's not all that huge of a facility. But we we didn't and in fact a lot of people that were there. We had seen at the grind the night before they had made the drive.

We even met some people who drove down from Georgia and and all over the place. Not a lot of the RTS folks were there at all I'd say 20 or 30 maybe from the seminary bothered to show up which I found very strange in Light of the fact that here you have John Sanders coming in and it doesn't matter who I am.

At least I would think that one of the leading proponents of Inclusivism and open theism and this is good to be the debate on the more Central of those two issues as far as the nature of God goes. It's open theism.

I just sort of expected a little bigger turnout, but we didn't have it. But anyways, that's the the joy of Videotape is that people who were not able to be there were able of course. We'll be able to watch the debate for themselves so anyways, we got everything set up and and Dr. Sanders as I said was was a different person the second night I don't know if it was the academic setting that made him more comfortable.

Of course, I would think Going to reform theological seminary. He's walking in the lion's den and maybe that was it. Maybe he was more focused I don't know but everyone commented the fact that he he seemed considerably more passionate and prepared For this particular subject than he did the night before.

And in fact, he had an excellent opening line. Where in the first, you know 30 seconds or so. He made the comment somewhere along the lines that I don't have the exact quote. But he says some long lines of so I believe in open theism.

And how in the world would anyone come to believe in an asinine thing like that and it caught everybody's attention. It was it was self-effacing. It was it was very good. I mean if I were in an Arminian seminary defending limited atonement, for example, it's something like I would have done and.

There weren't.

Nearly if there weren't really any of the pauses where he's looking You know look at the notes going where am I going to hear there were a few of those later on. Because one of the things that obviously hadn't had a lot of experience doing is Making notes on your notes as to okay handle this subject first this one second prioritizing on the fly in Giving rebuttals and responses.

That's something you really do learn to do Only over time and with experience and since this was only the second debate that doesn't give you a lot of experiences to draw from so much more interesting presentation Of the open theistic perspective.

However, I can the one who went first Because the first night he was defending inclusivism the second night I was defending the idea that God has exhaustive divine foreknowledge of all future events. He wanted to sort of get a little more specific on that and that's fine but I was giving the defense of that so I went first and Presented as strong a case as I as I possibly could in light of objections of open theism and Then he went he went afterwards and then we had the rebuttals and and again, though.

The thing that's gonna come out very clearly in both of these debates when you view them listen to him on mp3, whatever it might be is as In so many of our debates. There's one side that provides exegesis, there's one side that that draws its Position from the the exegesis of the text of Scripture and there's one side that primarily has philosophical presuppositions and builds its case from there and It became painfully clear by some of the statements that he made about scripture and scriptures in abilities To really address some of these topics.

Really what the fundamental issue in this debate was if you allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and if you if you believe that you must believe only what the scriptures teach and That you drive your theology from the scriptures that's completely different than if you Begin with certain philosophical presuppositions and then go to the scriptures to find passages that are amenable to your particular presuppositions while admitting that others may go a different perspective different route and Hence you end up with the Bible being self-contradictory or incapable of dealing with the issues and that came up in the cross-examination.

Where again, I asked him biblical questions I asked him to exegete passages of scripture and his discussions with me were all based on well Does God have this kind of knowledge or what theory of time do you subscribe to etc, etc?

Did not ask me to deal with scriptural passages or provide an exegetical response to almost anything at all. The contrast was was very very strong. Well, maybe you were there. Maybe you're listening in.

I'm not sure how in the world you'd know that we're on right now let's see you're in the chat channel, but 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 41 is the phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 41 if you have some questions about the the debates be happy to Respond to those and we'll continue with our review of the debates from last weekend right after this.

A Barna Survey on American Theology

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James white we're giving you a little bit of review as people are always asking for an update on what took place during the debates and of course, there's also There's also a desire to Hear sort of my viewpoint of what took place.

It's one thing for you to Watch the debates, but it's another thing get a little bit of the inside information. That you wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain from listening to those particular debates so anyways, we were mentioning the the debate Friday Saturday night at Reform Theological Seminary and open theism and again, there were Some defining moments mainly due to the presentation of exegetical passages.

And and again people sort of have to watch this to see for themselves. But I again would ask direct questions. Well, what does Isaiah 41 mean? What does? Psalm 139 16 mean when it says the our days were ordained for us and so on so forth.

And I was amazed this this was one of the interesting ones. I Asked about Psalm 139 16. He said well I don't have the book with me right now, but dr. Boyd, I think Talks about that. So I reached over and I picked up Greg Boyd's book and I sort of showed it to him.

Yeah, yeah that one He he indicates there's some translational issues there.

Now.

Again One of the first things when I first started looking at open theism number of years ago that was first book I got was Boyd's and I remember looking at that and I remember a Couple of friends of mine who know original languages like Simon Escobedo Jeff Neal all of us commented sort of separately about.

The.

The fact that we found Greg Boyd's Retreating to the King James Version and Psalm 139 16 absolutely amazing. I Mean, how can these folks? Try to make it sound like they represent the cutting edge of modern theology.

When they have to retreat to an error in the King James Version, the Hebrew is quite clear. It's it's not. There's not a really a question here at all. And so here I've got dr. Sanders Quoting somebody a secondary source Boyd and he's not even really certain exactly what Boyd said and so My follow-up question seemed to really bother him because Bruce Ware in his book God's lesser glory the diminished God of open theism Took Boyd apart on that.

And as Bruce always is he did so in a kindly fashion. But he Demonstrated that they're just there's just no reason to to adopt that kind of methodology. And so I asked the question, I think it's a fair question.

Have you any response to what Bruce Ware said in rebutting? Gregory Boyd's comments on Psalm 139 16 and he I Simon Confirmed this because I got the feeling but you know, I'm sort of busy during a debate so I I don't put a whole lot of stock into exactly how I feel about certain responses, but He confirmed this every time I'd mentioned the name Bruce Ware.

He would get this strange uncomfortable look on his face and The response to that was I don't even understand it. Well, no, not really or something along those lines he had no response to it and The same thing happened when I pressed the passages like Genesis 50 Isaiah 10 Acts 4.

I don't think we got to axe. Well, yeah I think we did get to axe for when I presented the passages that present compatibilism because of course one of the key issues between open theists and classical theists is open theists affirm libertarian free will that is the Fundamental element of their belief and they have some pretty strong arguments.

Against those who hold to simple foreknowledge our minions who hold that God simply knows the future but not because he decreed it. That's there's is a consistent position to believe in Libertarian free will and in fact their argument would be that if you want to believe in libertarian free will then you need to deny to God exhausted divine foreknowledge and so anyways, I then presented compatibilism that Man's creaturely will is compatible with God's sovereign decree that in one action you can have man freely acting on the intentions of his heart while God is acting on the in his intentions, which are always holy just and good man.

Of course is in Genesis chapter 50. For example Joseph's statement that You meant this for evil God minute for good. The parallel is very clear in the Hebrew. And so I asked him what's what's. How do you understand Genesis chapter 50?

How do you understand? Another one that came up is his his belief that the cross was not. Actually, the cross was not like the incarnation Determined from time immemorial and that even up to the garden there may have been other ways that were open.

And so I quoted him and then I went back and quoted from Mark 10 where Jesus told the disciples We're going to Jerusalem, this is what's gonna happen and his answer that one was well, those are all conditional and I said, could you show me the text where they're conditionals?

Well, no Genesis chapter 50. What about this and this is when he started things saying things like hey folks and he says this to the whole the whole Audience he says folks we haven't we haven't figured everything out yet.

Open Theists, we stood there's a lot of Dr. White's asking very good questions here, and we haven't figured it all out yet. He says but remember Calvinism wasn't built in a day and That was sort of the divine the defining moment.

We've I don't know but we haven't figured all this stuff out yet we'll get to it eventually, but hey Calvinism wasn't built in a day and And Again it illustrated the the vast difference in the perspectives that are ours where I'm I'm not trying to build a system.

And then force it on scripture. I want to draw my system from the scriptures and it was it was truly a.

A.

Lot of the conservatives in the audience just have a hard time understanding the mindset that could go into that kind of a of a statement. They just have a hard time understanding the the whole perspective out there where you basically have this concept of.

The scriptures just aren't sufficient to answer. The the issues that are being that are being raised and so In both debates the audience questions were very unevenly aimed at dr. Sanders that normally happens when a Couple of things have happened.

If your audience is primarily on one side Then they'll always pick on the other other guy and that that was undoubtedly the case Open the isms not the most popular view on the on the planet at least as far as an organized thing goes and so anyways the first night this guy's moving around the room with a handheld microphone and That's how the audience questions were handled, and I don't know I think One or two had come to me and all the rest were going to him and so I started to sort of playfully go man.

So I got a couple couple more questions, but almost all of them were aimed toward, dr. Sanders well what we decided to do the second night was to take audience questions on cards, and I'd like to like to really Thank mr. Finley and the other folks with him.

Who sort of jumped in and and did some stuff? They weren't expecting to do and help to make these debates even better. We collected the cards and The thought crossed my mind when we did that I didn't say anything about but the thought crossed our mind.

I wonder if they're even gonna get enough questions for me. To make him even well. I didn't we were gonna do ten questions. We ended up doing nine five for him and four for me so start with him. Then back and forth back and forth and finish with him, so we had to answer one more question than I did.

We only got four questions that were directed my way and at least two maybe three of those four were sort of like the I Don't want to make this and you know the totally negative way, but sort of set up questions basics like how could dr. Sanders believe this in light of this.

Because they're just they weren't that many people there that you know were sympathetic at all to what he had to say. So anyways the audience questions were Handled that way a gentleman stood at the podium and read them and then The person to whom is addressed would have a minute to respond and another person 30 seconds to comment and That's how it worked and then dr. Sanders went to The Tampa Bay Airport caught a flight out the next morning.

I I'll admit. This is one of the toughest things I've ever done. It was a long drive back. We got back to where I was staying around 1 20 in the morning the next morning. I've debated for two nights in a row and the only thing I can compare debating to is Back when I was younger, I would play chess and you would sometimes have a very long chess match in a uscf-sponsored chess tournament and you would be Exhausted.