Author Topic: Debate Challenges  (Read 25858 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2010, 12:56:23 PM »
Majesty,

I've suggested to you before that debates aren't your forte--you're simply not up to it. You show that here by not even PERCEIVING what the debate topic is (and you had the same problem with the debate I proposed). Apparently you were not helped even when Hermes marked the topic with an asterisk. To help you, I've made it bold...



Lol...i  guess  everybody  on  here  is  capable  of  debating,  but  me.  I  am  on  a long  apologetic  journey  and  I  am  just  getting  my  feet  wet  by  throwing  you  people  around  in  these  rooms  on  here.  I  give  very  sound  refutuations  for  everything  that  is  thrown  at  me,  and  if you  feel  i  am  not  up  to  it,  thats  perfectly  fine.  But  will  that  stop  me??  You  have  a  better  chance  riding  a  pig  down  hells  frozen  mountain  top  than  stopping  me  son.  And  as  far  as  you  putting  it  in  "bold"  to help  me,  look,  i  briefly  responded  to  Hermes  about  that  particular  thing  you  placed  in  bold,  and  said  i  will  be  more  than  happy  to  discuss  it  with  him.  So  you  are  about  as  late  as  a  library  book  after  the  due  date...son.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2010, 01:00:21 PM »
Hey Playa. I'll debate you on the "supernatural". I'll take the position it can't be proven to exist.

And you will lose.  :D

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM »
Your own utter intellectual dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge the many refutations of your argument is neither here nor there. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Further, you fail to understand the terms of argument. It is up to the proponent of a claim - and your argument amounted to a claim - to ensure that (a) it rests on sound premises and (b) the conclusion follows logically from the premises. That you choose to wave away objections because you don't like them is irrelevant. The objections stand; your argument therefore fails.

All  i  want  is  refutations  of  the  arguments.  I  said..

1. Whatever  begins  to  exist  has  a  cause
2. The universe  began  to  exist
3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause

That  is  a  deductive  argument  Deus.  Which  means  the  conclusion  LOGICALLY  follows  the  premises  whether  you  like  it  or  not,  whether  you  believe  it  or  not,  whether  you  AGREE  with  it  or  not..  Unless  you  can  show  why  #1 or  #2  is  false,  then  there  is  no  point  in  you  throwing  a hissy  fit  about  anything.  Deal  with  the  arguments  instead  of  dealing  with  irrelevant  things  like  semantics  and  these  other  feeble  things  you  continue  to  spew  at  me.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2010, 01:06:37 PM »

3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause


Is the "cause" supernatural? If you say so, I'll debate you that it can't be proven to exist, and I'll win.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2010, 01:10:18 PM »
1. Whatever  begins  to  exist  has  a  cause
2. The universe  began  to  exist
3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause

The universe could always have existed, which is the same with the claim your god has always existed. If I say:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Christian deity Yahweh began to exist.
3. Therefore, Yahweh has a cause.

You would simply say, "But my Yahweh has always existed." The same could be said for the universe. This leads nowhere.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2010, 01:10:48 PM »
Playa,

I just reported you to the debate room moderator for avoiding direct challenges. If you come in here, you need to be able to have the backbone to respond to challengers.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2010, 01:13:05 PM »
Majesty, are you interested in re-addressing the Kalam topic with other participants this time, or are you going to move on to other issues?
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2010, 01:14:02 PM »
Quote
Well  i  think  this  is  irrelevant  my  friend.  The  kalam  argument (if true)  gives  us  reasons  to  believe  that  some  type  of  deity  exist,  and  to  carry  on  life  thinking  that  a  particularly deity  doesn't  exist  is  to  be  in  denial  of  the  both  scientific  and  philosophical  evidence  that  supports  it.  (Personally  i  believe  the  Christian  God  is  behind  it  all,  and  the  evidence  for  that  starts  with  the  life,  death, and  ressurrection  of  Jesus Christ).  Now  you  can  be  in  disagreement  with  the  arguments  all  day long,  but  unless  you  can  refute  it  in  some  way  to  make  it  not  true,  i  think  its  safe  to  say  that  the  arguments  stand.  I  havent  seen  anyone  on  here,  including my opponent  give  any  type  of  refutations  to  the  evidence  supporting  the  premises  of  the  arguments.  In  fact,  im  still  waiting  to  see  some  type  of  refutation.  If  i  held  my  breath  while  waiting  i  would  of  been dead  about  3  weeks  ago.
I haven't been paying attention to your debate about the kalam argument.

I looked it up:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Wikipedia has quite a few good points against this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_argument#Objections_and_Criticism

Boom, refuted.

Do  you  think  I  am  worried  about  that  wiki  crap?  I  will  destroy  those  negations  if  any  one  of  them  were  brought  up  in  a  debate  with  me.  I  am  just  not  fazed  by  anything  you people  say  lol.  Come  harder

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2010, 01:15:25 PM »
Majesty, are you interested in re-addressing the Kalam topic with other participants this time, or are you going to move on to other issues?

I  am.  Just  tell  me  who, and  when.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2010, 01:16:12 PM »
Did you review my last reply to you?  What are your comments.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2010, 01:18:26 PM »
Playa,

I just reported you to the debate room moderator for avoiding direct challenges. If you come in here, you need to be able to have the backbone to respond to challengers.

I  also  challenged  some  people  to  a  debate  and  they  avoided  my  challenges  as  well.  So  will   you  report  them  too?  I  dont  know  what  kind  of  crap you people  are  trying  to pull,  but  it  is  becoming  sickening.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2010, 01:18:31 PM »
Reset ...

This thread is not a debate thread. It is for challenges and responses to debate a subject.

Majesty, please do not ignore challenges, either politely respond to the challenger Yes or No thank you to their challenges.

Please respond to HAL yes or no to his challenge, and everyone else please just talk about the debate challenge you are setting up, don't actually debate here.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 01:20:11 PM by Admin 1 »

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2010, 01:21:46 PM »
Reset ...

This thread is not a debate thread. It is for challenges and responses to debate a subject.

Majesty, please do not ignore challenges, either politely respond to the challenger Yes or No thank you to their challenges.

Please respond to HAL yes or no to his challenge, and everyone else please just talk about the debate challenge you are setting up, don't actually debate here.

Apologies.  I  didn't  know  the  rules  of  this  room. 

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2010, 01:23:06 PM »
Hey Playa. I'll debate you on the "supernatural". I'll take the position it can't be proven to exist.

And you will lose.  :D

I  refuse.  I  agree  that  the  supernatural  cant  be  proven.  I  refuse  to  accept  any  future  debates  with  Hal  on  any  subject.  There.  I  said  it  here.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2010, 01:24:33 PM »
Apologies.  I  didn't  know  the  rules  of  this  room. 

No problem.

Let's start anew. Everybody can be polite can't they? Just respond to a challenge Yes or No and that is all there will be to it. If the answer is Yes, talk about specifics of the debate - don't actually debate the subject - and please save the trash talk for the commentary thread. You can do that there all you want to.

Now, let's go forward please...

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2010, 01:38:02 PM »
Did you review my last reply to you?  What are your comments.

Hermes. I know  that  i  said  i  would  discuss  this  with  you, but  after  thinking  about  it,  I  dont  see  the point. Why?  Because  you  can  live  a  good  life  without  theism.  If  Warren  Buffet  was  an  atheist,  i  would  say  he  is  living  a  pretty  good  life  with  the  need  of  a  God.  So  I  am  willing  to  agree  with  you  that  you  can  live  a  good  life  as  a  nonbeliever  in  any  faith. 

So  my  opinion  is,  it  is  better  to  be  poor  and  a  theist,  than wealthy  and  a  atheist.  This  is  because i  believe  in  Christian  afterlife,  which  is  either  heaven/hell.  So  if  you  die  and  go  to  hell,  then  it  would  of  been  "better"  if  you  were  a  Christian.  But  if  theism  is  false,  and  there  is  no  God  at  all,  then  in  the  end  it  doesnt  matter,  because  you  will  just  cease  to  exist  just  like  anyone  else  that  died.

So,  as  far  as  how  one  should  live  his  life,  I  will  say  that  there  are  some  theist  that  are   living  a  better  life  than  atheist,  and  vice  versa.  The  word  "better"  is  very  subjective  and  it  depends  on  alot  of  things.  So  I  don't  think  we  will  get  anything  out  of  this  debate.  Do  you?

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2010, 01:50:57 PM »
The  word  "better"  is  very  subjective  and  it  depends  on  alot  of  things.  So  I  don't  think  we  will  get  anything  out  of  this  debate.  Do  you?

The word 'better' is subjective, unless quantified.  The bulleted list in my detailed reply did include items that could be unambiguously quantified (example: infant mortality) and I gave a 'better' label to each one that I think we can agree on ("* Infant mortality rates (lower is better)).  As such, we do not need to rely on subjectivity in the debate.  We agree on a list of items to measure, we agree on what constitutes 'better', and then we look at what reality is across societies.

As I have had a similar discussion along these lines in the past, I can say that not taking this challenge on your part is probably a wise decision.  The numbers are not in favor of theistic societies coming out on top, and I know of only a few categories where largely non-theistic societies tend to do worse.  In whole, I do not think you could win the argument without relying on subjective and biased individual cases, and by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that theism is a net negative to any society it is introduced into.

As such, I take your comment as a retraction from the debate and I accept it with no further commentary.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2010, 02:18:59 PM »

The word 'better' is subjective, unless quantified.  The bulleted list in my detailed reply did include items that could be unambiguously quantified (example: infant mortality) and I gave a 'better' label to each one that I think we can agree on ("* Infant mortality rates (lower is better)).  As such, we do not need to rely on subjectivity in the debate.  We agree on a list of items to measure, we agree on what constitutes 'better', and then we look at what reality is across societies.

As I have had a similar discussion along these lines in the past, I can say that not taking this challenge on your part is probably a wise decision.  The numbers are not in favor of theistic societies coming out on top, and I know of only a few categories where largely non-theistic societies tend to do worse.  In whole, I do not think you could win the argument without relying on subjective and biased individual cases, and by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that theism is a net negative to any society it is introduced into.

As such, I take your comment as a retraction from the debate and I accept it with no further commentary.

Ok Hermes.  I  accept.  If  you  could,  start  the  debate  thread,  and  lock  everybody  else  out.  You  can  begin  your opening  statement  at  any  time.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2010, 02:44:07 PM »
Ok Hermes.  I  accept.  If  you  could,  start  the  debate  thread,  and  lock  everybody  else  out.  You  can  begin  your opening  statement  at  any  time.

Only a moderator or Admin can start a debate thread in the Debate rooms.

I will start it - what is the title of the debate thread going to be?

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2010, 02:44:40 PM »
Ok Hermes.  I  accept.  If  you  could,  start  the  debate  thread,  and  lock  everybody  else  out.  You  can  begin  your opening  statement  at  any  time.

I'll write something up and drop a note to the moderators for space.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2010, 02:46:04 PM »
I will start it - what is the title of the debate thread going to be?

I'll look over some possibilities and submit them for consideration here.  Majesty is open to do the same.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2010, 05:06:46 PM »

I will start it - what is the title of the debate thread going to be?

I'll look over some possibilities and submit them for consideration here.  Majesty is open to do the same.

Im pretty confident  that  Hermes and  that  mind  of  his  will  think  of  something lol

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2010, 07:59:55 PM »
I like this topic.  It seems like it will have more original thought than the other debate had. The kalam debate seemed to just be a regurgitation of what WLC had to say. (I mean, I know that is what the debate was about but this topic seems more original)

Well,  until  someone  is  able  to  refute  what  WLC  has  to  say,  then  Me,  Him,  and  his  followers  will  continue  to  use  the  arguments.  Since  it  is  not  broke,  we  wont  be  needing  to  fix  it  lol.  You  may  not  like  it,  but  hey...thats  a  personal  problem

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2010, 08:12:46 PM »
Well,  until  someone  is  able  to  refute  what  WLC  has  to  say,  then  Me,  Him,  and  his  followers  will  continue  to  use  the  arguments.  Since  it  is  not  broke,  we  wont  be  needing  to  fix  it  lol.  You  may  not  like  it,  but  hey...thats  a  personal  problem

As I said some place in the commentary thread would you or him be able to admit that it's been refuted. In the end it's up to you, him and his followers to determine whether or not it has been refuted.

I'm just saying the argument has been done before, but I was expecting to hear similarities.



« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 08:14:25 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2010, 04:20:12 AM »
It would be very useful if "debaters" like 'Majesty', who come here with overboarding ego - bragging and blathering - would be required to explicitly state what kind of argument they would accept as refutation to their position in their opening statement. Alas, this would probably a good requirement for all debaters. Anyone convinced of the soundness of the own arguments should be able to name the arguments that would undermine the foundation of this confidence, at least hypothetically.

Example: If i was to take part in a debate on the topic "Human amputees can spontaneously regenerate limbs" and take the counter position (i.e. "Human amputees can't spontaneously regenerate limbs") i would be able to tell in advance that i would accept any medical report of a spontaneous limb generation in humans, that holds names and places and overall information for me to independently verify, as refutation of my position.

It would probably be hard for the other side to tell me what they would accept as refuting argument to their position, but it is not impossible.
  
  If they discuss their position at a concrete example of spontaneous limb generation they know of, the adequate refutation would be independently verifiable information that shows that example to be fake.

  If they argue from a more general position, e.g. that other human tissue is able to spontaneously regenerate, therefore it should in principle be possible for whole limbs to regenerate under the same conditions, an appropriate refutation would probably be a scientific analysis of the differences between regenerating tissues and limbs with an emphasis on the limitations of regenerative power.
  
  If the other side just argues from personal conviction, removed from all outside evidence, based on the imaginativeness of the own mind, an adequate refutation is not available, because the personal conviction is not based on objective analysis.

In that last case, a debate would be futile. Even if a debate is seen as beneficial for the audience rather than the debaters, imo. Nothing good or useful will come from it.

Of course it all gets much complexer for more abstract debate topics, but i am of the opinion, that any debater should be aware of what theoretical arguments would be fatal to the own position, regardless of the debate topic. If one only thinks he or she "is right, just because..." they are not suited for a formal debate.    
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 04:24:48 AM by Emergence »
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2010, 01:11:04 PM »

As I said some place in the commentary thread would you or him be able to admit that it's been refuted. In the end it's up to you, him and his followers to determine whether or not it has been refuted.
I'm just saying the argument has been done before, but I was expecting to hear similarities.

Emily  is  one  of  the  very  few  people  on  here  that  has  sincerity.  Look  people,  I  offered  two  philosophical  arguments  in  favor  of  the  kalam,  and  two  scienctific  arguments  in  favor  of  the  kalam.  If  you  recall  in  the  last  debate,  there  was  never  even  a  ATTEMPT  to  refute  the  two  philosophical  arguements. My opponent  focused  mainly  on  other  models  that  is  given  as  a  answer  for  the  beginning  of  the  universe.  So  to  answer the  question,  i  will  be  willing  to  admit  that  my  arguments  have  been  refuted  when  it  sucessfully  gets  refuted.  That  mean  that  I  need  a  CLEAR  CUT  REASON  why  there  CAN  be  an  ACTUAL  infinity.  And  there  needs  to  be  a  clear  cut  REASON  why  the  Big Bang model  isn't  the  best  explanation  of  the  beginning  of  the universe.  The  problem  that  any  objector  will  have  is,  the  majority  of    physicists  recognize  that  the  Big  Bang  model  is  the  best  explanation (I  can  prove  this),  and  philosophers  and mathematicians  recognize  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  actual  infinity (I  can also prove  this).  So I  have  the  experts  on  my  side  regarding  this  matter.  So  i  will  admit  that  my arguments  have  been  refuted  when  one  of you  put  out  some  PLAUSIBLE  information  that  will  go  AGAINST  what  the  experts on  the  matter  agree  upon.  Until  that  happens,  I  am  perfectly  justified  in  standing  behind  every  argument  as   I  presented  it.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2010, 01:22:38 PM »
Reset ...

This thread is not a debate thread. It is for challenges and responses to debate a subject.

Majesty, please do not ignore challenges, either politely respond to the challenger Yes or No thank you to their challenges.

Please respond to HAL yes or no to his challenge, and everyone else please just talk about the debate challenge you are setting up, don't actually debate here.

Admin is going to be pissed when he comes back to this thread...

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2010, 01:54:41 PM »
What the hell does it take before people do what I ask of them in this thread? I asked nicely to just arrange the debates in this thread, and stop re-hashing the debates that are over.

Do I have to get nasty and start deleting posts? I guess I do. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted without notice.

Offline GetMeThere

Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2010, 07:38:06 PM »
So....what's with the Hermes-Majesty debate? It's been four days and no sign of a debate.

I curious to know if Majesty has backed out, as he backed out of his agreed-to debate with me.