As children some of us used to play a game in the pool called Marco Polo. One person would close their eyes and shout "Marco!" and in response others would yell "Polo!" and the Marco-yeller would go bumping around the pool looking for the Polo-repliers. Well, I'm yelling "Marco" now with my eyes wide open, looking for Skeptic X's "Polo." It has now been two months since we issued Skeptic X a triple-challenge here and other than a brief comment on part 2, the silence since then has been deafening. So one more time, we're calling Skeptic X out, and we'll even make a concession. He wants debate? He's got it. He wants us to print EVERYTHING without editing? He's got it.

Here's the topic for debate: Is Marco Polo's lack of mention of the Great Wall an indication that he never visited China?

I can hear Skeptic X spluttering all the way down here, but he can save his breath because he'll have more to object to. I demand in addition two concessions. One, Skeptic X must refer to me by my writing pseudonym in this debate. As a measure of good faith I in turn will refrain from using humorous epithets (such as those illustrated by this accompanying picture) to refer to Skeptic X. Fair is fair.

Two, Skeptic X must refrain completely in this debate from referring to the Bible, to Christianity, to "fundamentalists" or "inerrantists" or anything religious.

Why all this? I have a point to prove, and this is how I will do it. I have stated several times that freethinkers and skeptics like Skeptic X are merely loud mouths pontificating on subjects they know nothing about. Skeptic X proved his identity in this group when he dialed up Frances Wood's Did Marco Polo Go to China? as a parallel to Biblical scholarship that he favors. I say Skeptic X hasn't got the ability to critically sift and analyze material for relevance or correctness; that this is his general fault where all topics, Biblical or otherwise, are concerned; and that if he can't pontificate about "fundamentalists" who "publish from Grand Rapids and Nashville" and have religious biases, then he has nothing at all to offer beyond hot air. With Polo the subject, there are no fundies, no geographic excuses, no biases. And in such a situation I say Skeptic X will be exposed as a fraud. (Hence, let's have no hearing of the expected responses, such as, "That's because Holding knows he can defend Polo better than he can defend the Bible!" It was Skeptic X who brought Polo up in the first place, and Skeptic X who considered himself competent enough to judge that Wood's case was sound as an example pertinent to how scholars "apply their principles of scientific investigation to all historical claims in a scholarly search to determine what probably did and what probably did not happen." I say it's just an example of someone with bad critical thinking skills not doing enough homework or trying to make a buck or get attention off a controversial subject, and Skeptic X just hopped on the bandwagon because he could think no better -- just as he does with the Bible. Skeptic X's abilities, if he has any, can be judged regardless of the subject matter, so let's skip the excuses and get down to tacks.)

We can work out detailed particulars once this general challenge is accepted -- or, of course, Skeptic X does have the option of withdrawing his original item and printing a retraction in an upcoming issue, admitting that Wood's book doesn't provide the parallel he wants after all. Or we can even post his ENTIRE retraction here on the site in nice big letters. Either way is fine. You guys know where I am. ;-)