I've been monitoring the back and forth between Bubba and Dan, and it's going pretty much as expected. I can't say that I don't understand what the big deal is. This is how I see it:
Let's assume two sides, since there really actually are. Since they generally run along political lines that are fairly well understood, I'll use "right side" and "left side" (of course I'm on the right side---the right side morally is just coincidentally the right side politically).
Anyway, Bubba argues for the right side, and Dan argues for the left. They are each, to one extent or another typical of all who are on each side, at least generally. And they each engage in a manner that is also, to one extent or another, at least generally, typical of each side. The right goes to the heart of the matter, dealing in reality, willing to face the truth on truth's terms. The left, goes to the heart of what they want reality to be, and takes great pains to avoid facing the truth on truth's terms in deference to that altered "reality" they would prefer.
When the right answers a question, the answer is as direct as the question. The left alters the question to reflect the preferred altered reality, and then answers a question that wasn't asked.
When the right balks at a question, it is because the question is leading, irrelevant, or takes the discussion down a preferred tangent believed by the left to be more amenable to the altered reality the left prefers. When the left balks at a question, it is because the question exposes the gaping holes in the altered reality the leftist hoped wasn't so glaringly obvious.
Maybe I shouldn't paint the entirety of the left with such a broad brush. But the above is descriptive of what's going on at Dan's blog and is typical of all debates with him. So I can show Dan how it's done and take the initial questions Bubba put to him and demonstrate how one answers the questions honorably. I won't answer as if I'm Dan, but answer as if the questions were put to me. I begin with the two set up questions to which I believe Bubba put forth with an assumption of a positive response from Dan:
Do you believe in orthodoxy and heresy as real categories and not just traditional understandings?
Do you really believe that there are essential Christian doctrines?
See how that works? I answered two "yes or no" questions with either a "yes" or a "no", in this case, a "yes". That's my honest response. But keep in mind that these were set up questions, as in setting the stage for the real questions of interest to Bubba. A "no" response would make what follows unnecessary and moot. There would be no point in asking what follows if a "no" response followed these questions, so the asking was rhetorical. So here are the actual questions:
NAME ONE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
Jesus is God in flesh.
NAME ONE CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Note that I didn't ask "essential to whom", as if the question wasn't seeking my opinion only. Note that I didn't take off on irrelevant asides regarding how some things in Scripture are clear to some and not to others. I answered as one who convicted in my beliefs, confident that what I believe is true and honest enough to allow my beliefs to be scrutinized and tested openly in a manner that might lead to a better understanding of what is true, or greater confidence that what I already know is true. If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want to be wrong, but I do indeed want to know the truth.
Dan doesn't want to be wrong. He likes what he wants to believe is true. I think that's for the most part true for leftists in general, but for Dan I have little doubt of it based on our years of engagement. It makes perfect sense given his evasive and convoluted style of debate. It is being played out before our eyes at Dan's blog, though I wouldn't expect it to last much longer.