Author Topic: Debate Challenges  (Read 28788 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #174 on: March 23, 2011, 09:32:43 AM »
My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #175 on: March 23, 2011, 09:51:23 AM »
so you won't use your own defintions?  Interesting and I am curious to see how you interpret what you think the site actually says.  Please let me know what this "relevant" article is.
There's links to them in the FAQ pinned to the top of the amputee board. I haven't read all the material. I'm referring to:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

Quote
How about if we don't count requests for clarification in the post number?
OK.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #176 on: March 23, 2011, 09:57:45 AM »
My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?

OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?
Should it be locked between you and Voter? So you can thrash out yours terms of reference? If that is the case then fine.

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #177 on: March 23, 2011, 10:01:32 AM »

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.

You're welcome to get in on the betting pool.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #178 on: March 23, 2011, 10:07:40 AM »
My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?

OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?
Should it be locked between you and Voter? So you can thrash out yours terms of reference? If that is the case then fine.

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.

You didn't compromise anything but there will be a thread created by Screwtape for voter and I.  Then there will be a thread for commentary about that debate.  that how it works.  this thread is for hashing out how the debate will run, not the debate itself.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12253
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #179 on: March 23, 2011, 10:31:54 AM »
OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?


This thread is to issue debate challenges.  It is for the participants to request the moderator to set up a debate thread in the actual Debate Room.  See also the first post of this thread and the Debate Rules thread.

You may post commentary about a specific debate in its commentary thread.

regards,
Screwtape
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12253
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #180 on: March 23, 2011, 10:33:39 AM »
I should have made the announcement, but in case you did not notice, the debate threads are set up and ready to roll, at your convenience.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1321
  • Darwins +104/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #181 on: March 25, 2011, 01:50:26 AM »
Peace.  I would like to formally challenge MathIsCool to a debate on his contention that theism is required to account for morality.

Nah son...

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12253
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #182 on: March 28, 2011, 07:21:03 AM »
Does MathIsCool agree? 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline MathIsCool

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #183 on: July 22, 2011, 01:20:55 PM »
It's been almost 4 months, but MathIsCool has finally gotten around to agreeing. :)

Timo, you still up for it?  What kind of format are you thinking?  I know I'd like to have a decent chunk of time in between our responses -- say, a week?  I'd also like to settle on a finite number of posts each before starting into it.
Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

 - Expurgate, here

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1321
  • Darwins +104/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #184 on: July 22, 2011, 08:26:38 PM »
Like I've already said, I'd prefer a more informal discussion since I don't think I'll be defending any alternative system of morality in particular since I don't think it's all that important to the discussion and would probably muddy the waters a bit.  My only contention will be that there's no reason to think that a moral system can only be based on God.  So yeah, I won't need an opening statement or anything like that. 

As far as time constraints, I feel you.  I'd say a week between responses is fine.  And if I respond within a week, I think it'd be fine if you took that week plus however many days early I responded.  I appreciate your taking the time to do this so I'm completely comfortable with giving you any accommodation you need.


Peace
Nah son...

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #185 on: October 03, 2011, 11:12:04 AM »
I would like to challenge L-Chaim to a debate regarding the (non)existence of Bible God.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #186 on: November 11, 2011, 02:25:58 AM »
If Mr. Whatchamean? would like, I will gladly accept his challenge of debating me on his claims that the story of Noah's Ark is true, as according to his beliefs.

Note that I am in a different timezone and so my responses could come after, during or before people, which would include Mr. Whatchamean?, are in the process of waking up.  :P
The Second C

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5013
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #187 on: March 11, 2012, 08:28:06 AM »
jakec47 PMed me that he would like a one-on-one debate.

Any takers out there?

What's the topic?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2028
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #188 on: March 11, 2012, 10:06:20 AM »
I might be up for it if the topic is interesting. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5013
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #189 on: March 11, 2012, 10:14:42 AM »
I might be up for it if the topic is interesting.

OK, I sent him a PM to respond here.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #190 on: March 11, 2012, 10:15:59 AM »
jakec47 PMed me that he would like a one-on-one debate.

Any takers out there?

What's the topic?

Depending on the topic, I'd be willing.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #191 on: March 12, 2012, 12:09:46 AM »
I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #192 on: March 12, 2012, 07:25:38 AM »
I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

That's very sporting of you -- and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being snide -- but because you're the believer, and because believers come in all kinds of "stripes", as it were, it would probably be best for you to offer a topic.  Someone here might (for example) be willing to debate you on the issue of Young Earth Creationism, but that would be kind of pointless if you aren't a Young Earth Creationist -- some believers are, others aren't, and as far as I can recall, you haven't said whether you are or not.

I was about to offer to debate on the historicity of the global flood and Noah's Ark, for example, but then I realized you haven't stated either way whether you think that actually was an historical event.  (Used to be most believers did; these days, most don't.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #193 on: March 13, 2012, 04:07:54 PM »
... I have a topic, the same one I always seem to raise:

Given a definition of your particular sect or brand of theology and the structure of your Catechism, why should we accept your theology as relevant or accurate or authoritative, given the vast array of people who, by default, possess different brands of your own faith, much less different faiths and traditions entirely?

I submit that the atheist has no reason to consider your faith valid, as no evidence exists to validate your faith over one that is wholly incompatible with your own (e.g., Mormonism vs. Catholicism).
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Darwins +403/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #194 on: March 15, 2012, 04:40:34 AM »
I'd be willing to debate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, assuming you think Jesus actually rose from the dead.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #195 on: March 15, 2012, 04:45:40 AM »
I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

You gotta give a list of topics and where you stand on those, rather than something like this. How are we supposed to know which topics we disagree on?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12253
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #196 on: March 19, 2012, 01:06:18 PM »
I split off the discussion on jakec47's beliefs because it's not really for this thread.  Split topic is here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21902.0.html


Now, would someone please decide on a goddamn debate topic already? 


« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 01:10:12 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #197 on: March 19, 2012, 01:09:04 PM »
I vote that Kcrady has the first bites with the historicity of Jesus. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6404
  • Darwins +757/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #198 on: March 19, 2012, 01:23:12 PM »
Well, I need to know if Kcrady is gonna do it, because if he is, I have to put of getting a new computer. I don't mind of the screen on my old one shatters in awe, but I wouldn't want to have that happen to a new one.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Darwins +403/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #199 on: March 23, 2012, 12:24:16 AM »
I'll do it. Thanks for the compliment, Parking Places. :)  Jakec47, I'll debate the resurrection of Jesus (con/"didn't happen" position) or the proposition that the Jesus of the Gospels is a fictional character (pro).
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1290
  • Darwins +403/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #200 on: March 25, 2012, 10:31:10 AM »
OK, jakec47, what do you think of the following format:

An Opening Statement by each of us (probably you first, since you're taking the "pro" position, but I am willing to go first if you prefer), followed by alternating Rebuttals and Statements, either continuing until we both feel we've covered all our material, or some set number (say, four turns each), followed by a Concluding Statement from each of us.  If you go first, my Concluding Statement would be the last post in the debate, and vice versa.  I would also like to propose that each "turn" be limited to a length of no more than two posts.  This will force us both to be concise and prevent our succeeding replies from becoming gigantic multi-post treatises.

What do you think?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #201 on: April 26, 2012, 04:04:57 PM »
First off we need to go somewhere else for this debate, this thread is so filled. And my pro position would be that the Resurrection is true and Jesus really did rise from the dead. I agree with most of your format, I would ask if you go first, then I go, and we continue back and forth, and others should be left out so I don't have to go off topic or debate with more people at once. Two posts for our replies sounds fine to me.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12253
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #202 on: April 26, 2012, 08:44:08 PM »
First off we need to go somewhere else for this debate, this thread is so filled.

here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21970.0.html
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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