And that is a fair assessment I think.I didn't either! I wrote,
"However, the impression I got from the debates was that afterward, the Protestants were still Protestant, and the Catholics still Catholic."
Or, to make it PLAIN, while the debates were interesting and informative, I do not believe they changed anyone's opinion. (Just my opinion, insofar as that I didn't do any exit polls. )
The debates didn't convince me that White was correct, I just came away thinking "White is a good debater."
Actually, quite frankly, sometimes I even root for him when he goes up against Catholic Answers. I mean---when the folks at Catholic Answers run around and brag about not bothering to read his works or listen to his debates----they deserve to have White wipe the floor with them. I am not a professional debater and I at least know---that you need to know and understand your opponent. You need to know your opponents arguments inside and out. Preferably, you should be able to argue your opponents points better than your opponent can. Only then are you in a position to debate. White understands that; Catholic Answers does not. And the thing is, apparently Karl Keating was (or is) a lawyer. Keating should know better. Catholic Answers could be so much better; if only Keating would realize that Jack Chick is not representative of actual mainstream Protestant thought.
I read a transcript of a debate between Keating and Bart Brewer. It was very apparent that Keating had not read anything of his opponent when he came to the debate and gave his opening statement. Instead of treating Brewer's arguments he talked about Lorraine Boettner, apparently not realizing that he isn't debating Boettner but Bart Brewer.
Most of the people White goes up against--not just about Catholicism but pretty much anyone he debates aren't professional debaters and it shows. Mitch Paqua is probably one of few actual Catholic scholars he has debated, but Paqua clearly is not a debater. Paqua is brilliant; he is just not a debater. White may debate scholars, but scholars do not usually debate like that. Just because you have a PhD after your name does not mean you can think on your feet, speak well, present the material well, etc. Those who debate have to be able to think on their feet, they have to anticipate any counter points the opponent may come up with.