Author Topic: debating the Other Side  (Read 23 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
debating the Other Side
« on: July 21, 2014, 01:41:58 PM »
Playing the devils advocate require me to lie/trick/hide information that I have.

No, it would not require you lie.  It would require you do more research and find other information, which you may not already be familiar with.

It sounds to me like you are already planning to play to lose this argument, which is not in the spirit of it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1521
  • Darwins +11/-151
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 01:54:21 PM »
Playing the devils advocate require me to lie/trick/hide information that I have.
No, it would not require you lie.  It would require you do more research and find other information, which you may not already be familiar with.
You seem to think that I did not do such things before concluding that Catholicism is a force for Good in the world. This position of mine (the real position) is based on research of proof on both side of the argument. That is usually how I do things before choosing a side, I look at what the opposite side says.
And from what I've found, there is no way I could play the Devils advocate without lie/trick/hide information that I have.
I could [support my claims], but you wouldn't understand. Others have tried and you can't or won't see it.

You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 02:42:03 PM »
You seem to think that I did not do such things before...

Your replies to most of our points have been so terrible as to indicate that if you had done any actual research, you did a monumentally awful job of it. 

And from what I've found, there is no way I could play the Devils advocate without lie/trick/hide information that I have.

So what does that mean for the rest of us?  We are liars?  We are trying to trick you?  We hide information?  Or just that we are that much dumber than you? 

I hope you can understand why you saying such a thing is insulting.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1521
  • Darwins +11/-151
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 05:16:11 PM »
You seem to think that I did not do such things before...
Your replies to most of our points have been so terrible as to indicate that if you had done any actual research, you did a monumentally awful job of it. 
And from what I've found, there is no way I could play the Devils advocate without lie/trick/hide information that I have.
So what does that mean for the rest of us?  We are liars?  We are trying to trick you?  We hide information?  Or just that we are that much dumber than you? 
I hope you can understand why you saying such a thing is insulting.
There is not way *I* could play the Devils advocate without lie/trick/hide information that I have. I don't know about you.
You might even have information that I am missing and I am ready to reevaluate my position in light of these elements. But right now, *I* can't support the opposite of what I believe without lying.
Quote
So what does that mean for the rest of us? 
  Nothing. I'm talking about me. Not you.
Quote
We are liars?
I don't think so.
Quote
We are trying to trick you?
I don't think so.
Quote
We hide information?
I don't think so.
Quote
we are that much dumber than you? 
I don't think so.
I could [support my claims], but you wouldn't understand. Others have tried and you can't or won't see it.

You're worth more than my time

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 05:51:43 PM »
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.
By definition, existence means to have actual being or to be real.  In order for this to be the case, it must exist outside and be independent of a person's mind, otherwise it cannot have actual being/be real.

For example, Darth Vader does not actually exist.  Even though there are people who dress up as Darth Vader, who take on his role for movies and the like, he is not an actual person.  He is dependent on people to keep him in their imaginations.  If every human being who had ever seen or heard of Darth Vader were struck with targeted amnesia, then he would vanish without a trace.

Whereas George Washington actually existed.  There are historical records of him, things he did in the world.  If every human being who had ever heard of him were struck with targeted amnesia, he would still have existed, and the things he did would still have happened.

Quote from: Lukvance
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.
No, you just had a different idea of what the subject of the debate was than they did (when you act like every person who had a different idea than you was mistaken, that comes across as arrogance).  The 'mistake', if mistake it was, was that none of you made sure to be on the same page before you began it.  So instead of blaming them for making a mistake, take it as a lesson to be learned from.

Quote from: Lukvance
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.
So why didn't you suggest that?  The way you came across (and to a degree, are still coming across) is that you were correct and everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2014, 01:40:23 AM »
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate 1) a coherent and rational definition of the term "God" and 2) demonstrate that such an alleged 'thing' exists in any other way besides that which is imaginary.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1521
  • Darwins +11/-151
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2014, 01:41:43 AM »
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate 1) a coherent and rational definition of the term "God" and 2) demonstrate that such an alleged 'thing' exists in any other way besides that which is imaginary.
Do you want to open a debate about that?
I could [support my claims], but you wouldn't understand. Others have tried and you can't or won't see it.

You're worth more than my time

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: debating the Other Side
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2014, 07:55:46 AM »
You'd have to do #1 before debating #2.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.