Author Topic: Debate Challenges  (Read 28729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4881
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #261 on: July 20, 2014, 08:10:05 AM »
So, who's up next for a debate? :) I think I discouraged those I was debating with.
No, you just annoyed them.  There's more to a debate than simply holding the same position regardless of how your opponent counters, and refusing to acknowledge the validity of the points they make.

EDIT:  Let me put it this way.  You agreed to abide by the decision of a third party who would decide when the debate between you and OAA was over and who had won.  Then, when he made his decision, you acted like his decision was open to discussion, thus breaking the agreement you had made.  It's that kind of thing that makes people not want to debate you - because when you lose, you refuse to accept it and instead argue that you've actually won.

There are some situations where that would be an admirable trait.  But a contest where you've agreed to abide by certain conditions is not one of them.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 08:18:58 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #262 on: July 20, 2014, 01:33:43 PM »
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.

That wasn't what I asked.  I asked if you would be prepared to argue the other position.
Going against my belief? Sure I am prepared. But it will require some sort of trickery on my part. Mostly using the same trick used during the debate on youtube.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #263 on: July 20, 2014, 01:41:16 PM »
So, who's up next for a debate? :) I think I discouraged those I was debating with.
No, you just annoyed them.  There's more to a debate than simply holding the same position regardless of how your opponent counters, and refusing to acknowledge the validity of the points they make.

EDIT:  Let me put it this way.  You agreed to abide by the decision of a third party who would decide when the debate between you and OAA was over and who had won.  Then, when he made his decision, you acted like his decision was open to discussion, thus breaking the agreement you had made.  It's that kind of thing that makes people not want to debate you - because when you lose, you refuse to accept it and instead argue that you've actually won.

There are some situations where that would be an admirable trait.  But a contest where you've agreed to abide by certain conditions is not one of them.
I'm sorry. Let me be clear about something. I am more than ready to admit a loss when I have one. But when the verdict that has been cast is based on LIES or misreading errors. What would you have done? Accept the lost then just insult the poor judge? Or try to understand how this judge came to make the mistake?
The only Debate that was supposed to be decided by a 3rd party was about the existence of God. And the person that I was debating wrongly assumed that I was debating the existence of God outside our mind/body. So did the judge. I underlined that mistake and moved on. (since the mod did not tolerate more comments on his judgement, he does that sometimes. Gives you a warning and when you ask precisely why he ask you to shut up, or tells you he won't read you anymore, no time for that) :)
You're worth more than my time

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4881
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #264 on: July 20, 2014, 03:11:18 PM »
I'm sorry. Let me be clear about something. I am more than ready to admit a loss when I have one. But when the verdict that has been cast is based on LIES or misreading errors. What would you have done? Accept the lost then just insult the poor judge? Or try to understand how this judge came to make the mistake?
If I had thought the judge was honestly mistaken, I would have taken it up with him privately.  Asked him to explain his reasoning and then pointed out the flaws in it, if there were any.  If his logic was flawless, then I would have had to at least consider that I might have been the one mistaken.

Quote from: Lukvance
The only Debate that was supposed to be decided by a 3rd party was about the existence of God. And the person that I was debating wrongly assumed that I was debating the existence of God outside our mind/body. So did the judge. I underlined that mistake and moved on. (since the mod did not tolerate more comments on his judgement, he does that sometimes. Gives you a warning and when you ask precisely why he ask you to shut up, or tells you he won't read you anymore, no time for that) :)
No, the purpose of the debate was whether a god existed.  You failed to establish that a god existed.  Instead, you equivocated your god with an emotion and then claimed that since emotions existed, your god existed.  However, an emotion is not a god, despite your claim.  This is because you also stated that your definition of a god is one who is the ultimate best (has all imaginable qualities).  As emotions are not the ultimate best (by any definition), emotions cannot be gods.  Finally, you gave nothing to support your assertion that your god was as real as an emotion; the closest you came was when you tried to compare the emotion of love and a god.  Since the emotion of love has no independent existence (it requires a person to feel it in order to exist) and each person's conception and expression of love can differ, the most you could have shown with this is that each person had their own conception of a god.  This would never have shown that any god had an independent existence.

Because you contradicted yourself, you lost the debate.  You could have chosen to accept this gracefully (your loss was due to a mistake you made, and did not actually disprove the existence of your god); instead, you tried to continue arguing on technicalities.  I am not interested in going into those technicalities here, since this is the Debate Challenges thread.  The point is that you could have ended the debate in such a way as to gain respect, and instead chose to stubbornly continue it, insisting that your opponent and the judge were wrong.  That is not conducive to other people being willing to debate you.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #265 on: July 20, 2014, 03:41:18 PM »
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.

That wasn't what I asked.  I asked if you would be prepared to argue the other position.
Going against my belief? Sure I am prepared. But it will require some sort of trickery on my part.

Trickery?  No.  Just an honest willingness to evaluate and present without bias a position you do not hold.  I'm interested to see the results.  Shall I PM screwtape to set up a debate room?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #266 on: July 21, 2014, 12:54:43 PM »
This would never have shown that any god had an independent existence.
I totally agree with you. Good thing that it wasn't what I was supposed to debate there. You seem to want to change the subject too. The subject is very simple "does God exist" I don't have to prove that something is independent to prove it's existence. I never had to and never will I have to.
Ps: I am not saying they were wrong in their judgement.
I'm saying that like you they made a mistake on the subject of the debate. They both thought the debate was "Does god exist independently?" and argue from that point when I was arguing from another point, closer to the subject.
I would have judge the same thing if I was them. I would have also agree to change my verdict upon realizing the assumption I made on the subject. Even if it was only to retract it and maybe even suggest the two debaters to create a new debate this time making sure they are debating the same thing.
But, that's me.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #267 on: July 21, 2014, 01:00:45 PM »
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.

That wasn't what I asked.  I asked if you would be prepared to argue the other position.
Going against my belief? Sure I am prepared. But it will require some sort of trickery on my part.
Trickery?  No.  Just an honest willingness to evaluate and present without bias a position you do not hold.  I'm interested to see the results.  Shall I PM screwtape to set up a debate room?
Playing the devils advocate require me to lie/trick/hide information that I have. I cannot do it otherwise, sorry. Also, if we were to debate, you would have to support the fact that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. And that you will have to invalidate all my counter arguments. Are you prepared to support a faith that you do not hold on to?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #268 on: July 21, 2014, 08:35:47 PM »
jaimehlers - I responded to your post in the comment thread of the debate with OAA
Anfauglir - Do you another Subject that we could discuss?
Like "Can good could exist/survive without Religion"?
You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #269 on: July 22, 2014, 09:53:24 AM »
I split out the discussion.  This thread is not for discussion and debate but to make debate challenges.  Please stick to that.


Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #270 on: July 23, 2014, 12:59:56 AM »
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.

That wasn't what I asked.  I asked if you would be prepared to argue the other position.
Going against my belief? Sure I am prepared. But it will require some sort of trickery on my part.
Trickery?  No.  Just an honest willingness to evaluate and present without bias a position you do not hold.  I'm interested to see the results.  Shall I PM screwtape to set up a debate room?
Playing the devils advocate require me to lie/trick/hide information that I have. I cannot do it otherwise, sorry. Also, if we were to debate, you would have to support the fact that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. And that you will have to invalidate all my counter arguments. Are you prepared to support a faith that you do not hold on to?

Yes.  Shall I ask screwtape to set up the debate?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #271 on: July 23, 2014, 11:16:45 AM »
This could be fun. Ask Screwtape. Could you please in the intro specify that I am arguing against my beliefs and that most of what I will say in this debate I will disagree on if asked. Same goes for you Anfauglir of course.
You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #272 on: July 23, 2014, 12:55:23 PM »
done
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1956
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #273 on: July 23, 2014, 05:16:50 PM »
done
Sorry, could I have the link?
You're worth more than my time

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12247
  • Darwins +270/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #274 on: July 24, 2014, 08:44:44 AM »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.