whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Formal Debates => Topic started by: Inactive_1 on December 22, 2009, 09:32:57 AM

Title: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on December 22, 2009, 09:32:57 AM
All challenges for new debates can be posted here. Once the participants are selected a moderator or myself will create the debate thread and commentary thread in a debate room.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on December 22, 2009, 05:04:37 PM
I'll offer a topic for debate -

"This House Believes that the innate capacity for understanding of right and wrong indicates a moral law-giver."

It's probably worth adding at this point that it's not necessary for participants in a debate to adhere to the views they promote in a debate - indeed, in debating classes, one is often assigned a debating topic and position irrespective of their personal opinions! So if anyone things they can put up a good argument on one side or the other, feel free to step up to the plate. :)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: matthew7812 on December 25, 2009, 12:56:11 AM
John wesley quote

"•The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God.
•It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they neither would or could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying “Thus saith the Lord,” when it was their own invention.
•It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.
•Therefore, I draw this conclusion that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration."

any takers on that?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: DisdainDavid on December 25, 2009, 01:00:19 AM
Matthew,

If I understand your quote correctly it appears you are wanting to argue that it is impossible for the bible to be the invention of people, and hence must be the work of a god?  We can focus the debate around the quote but a very blunt, this or that, position would probably be best and then you can work your argument up for/against it in the OP of the debate.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Levan on December 25, 2009, 01:03:55 AM
I would.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: DisdainDavid on December 25, 2009, 01:05:10 AM
I would.

Well, lets get some clarification on the specific subject and then we can set it up!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Levan on December 25, 2009, 01:11:42 AM
Eh... not much in particular.

I'd guess, from an agnostic atheist's stance, I'd want the argument to be "the above statement proves the divinity of the Bible" (I'd be arguing that the statement does not prove the divinity of the Bible).
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: DisdainDavid on December 25, 2009, 01:14:52 AM
Eh... not much in particular.

I'd guess, from an agnostic atheist's stance, I'd want the argument to be "the above statement proves the divinity of the Bible" (I'd be arguing that the statement does not prove the divinity of the Bible).

Thats what I think as well.  Lets see what Matthew has to say.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Levan on December 25, 2009, 01:26:34 AM
A problem I just remembered:

I'll be going to Japan tomorrow, and I don't know if I can get internet connection at my grandparents' house.

Though I'm pretty sure I'll be able to find a connection so I can reply, I don't know if I can reply right on time.

If everyone is fine with slightly late responses, I'll stay in. If not, someone else can take my place.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on December 25, 2009, 04:55:09 AM
John wesley quote

"•The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God.
•It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they neither would or could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying “Thus saith the Lord,” when it was their own invention.
•It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.
•Therefore, I draw this conclusion that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration."

any takers on that?

It might be useful to summarise that in a suitably catchy title (something that would fit into the sentence "This House believes that...")
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Levan on December 25, 2009, 07:51:04 AM
I recommend Angel, Devil or God.

Also, Matthew, I'm ready for the debate. Just post your approval/disapproval...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on December 28, 2009, 08:12:43 PM
I would like to see a debate between a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very educational to everyone.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Narrow Mullen on December 29, 2009, 02:46:55 AM
I would like to see a debate between a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very educational to everyone.
That'd be pretty awesome! I know of a Muslim who I think may be willing, I'll see if I can get him onboard.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on December 29, 2009, 02:52:12 AM
I would like to see a debate between a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very educational to everyone.

For a year now I've been wanting to see a proper debate between a Muslim, a Christian, and an atheist all at the same time. It would be amazing if you could set this up. Even if only between a Muslim and a Christian. All such debates in my country are silly arguments that end up in fights, so people tend to avoid them like the plague.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL on December 29, 2009, 10:49:30 AM
faris vs Fran!  :D
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on December 29, 2009, 03:01:40 PM
faris vs Fran!  :D

.....
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Levan on December 30, 2009, 01:59:25 AM
:(

I'm not going to be able to participate in the debate until January 8th or later. I can't seem to get internet access in Japan (except right now).

Just for your information...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on January 03, 2010, 12:50:38 PM
Errr, could we try to  arrange the debate proposed above? I wouldn't mind participating, but me beliefs are not... very main stream Islam. I'm sure we can find a couple of people willing to debate their opinions on the forum.     
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes on January 04, 2010, 07:23:39 PM
A challenge to Majesty ...

[ by PM ]

Quote
Relaxed, and ready to go ...

Hopefully you are relaxed and ready to go as well.

If you are, post a response to the following new thread;

Debate Challenges
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11385.0 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11385.0)

I have a few ideas that we can discuss or debate as the mood currently moves you.



Here is what I am currently thinking ...

The WLC/Kalam debate you had with Kcrady boiled down to both you and him giving 'silver bullet' style philosophical arguments that intended to sink the other's argument but had very little to do with practical issues.  In the end, even if Kalam was conclusively proven, it does not prove that any specific deity exists.

Because of that, regardless of the outcome of a Kalam discussion, it leaves us without any direction.

What should we as individuals do?  Assuming Kalam was proven to show the specific type of deity WLC posited, we would still be stuck wondering if it is best to follow that deity or set of deities; is it Yahweh, Allah, some other unknown deity, some deity we are physically unable to identify because we are inadequate, or some deity that is not concerned with us mainly but is interested in a yet higher being than ourselves?  Or, is it best not to follow that deity at all?

We as individuals can't definitively say as we are not infinite ourselves, what concerns a Kalam-style deity would have with us may be no different from that of any other creature or even inanimate hunk of stone.  While I'm sure you will disagree, it should be clear that these details could be argued for years and still lead to nothing conclusive all people in the discussion can agree on.

So, I propose a question that is more practical;

* Is theism -- or a specific type of theism -- better for the members of a society than non-theism?

I will take the position that at best, theism does as much damage as it does good and has a net neutral impact on society.  I will grant that theisms may have provided a crude boot strapping effect to societies in the past and in less developed countries, but that those boosts to society come with some very high costs.  Costs that we no longer need to get a society going, or to make it's members more empathetic, more moral.

If you consider this question, or a variation of it, worthy of a conversation, discussion, or full debate, let me know.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: voodoo child on January 04, 2010, 07:59:13 PM
cant wait Hermes.  ;D
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes on January 05, 2010, 12:58:37 AM
Don't.  I do not think he's going to show, but I could be mistaken.  I did extended a similar offer to someone else.  The other person seems to be hung up on the style of the forums over the content of the messages.  Being polite is all well and good, but being bluntly honest tends to blow away many fervent biases -- and there are enough of those on the Christian side to smother an Eskimo.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL on January 05, 2010, 09:52:05 AM
The other person seems to be hung up on the style of the forums over the content of the messages.  Being polite is all well and good, but being bluntly honest tends to blow away many fervent biases -- and there are enough of those on the Christian side to smother an Eskimo.

Hey, at least they won't get banned for stating their position.  :shrug
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes on January 05, 2010, 12:35:31 PM
Hey, at least they won't get banned for stating their position.  :shrug

What?  Are you saying that Christians on pro-Christianity forums ban non-Christians or Christians that don't toe the party line?  Inconceivable!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI[/youtube]
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty on January 05, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
A challenge to Majesty ...

What is  the  challenge?


In the end, even if Kalam was conclusively proven, it does not prove that any specific deity exists.

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.

Because of that, regardless of the outcome of a Kalam discussion, it leaves us without any direction.

You  would  have  a  direction.  The  direction  would  be  "ok,  since  i  believe  the  kalam  is  more  plausible  than  its  negations,  where  do  i  go  from  here?"  Accepting  the  kalam  is  the  first  direction/step  in  the  journey  of  which  God  is behind  door  #1.

What should we as individuals do?  Assuming Kalam was proven to show the specific type of deity WLC posited, we would still be stuck wondering if it is best to follow that deity or set of deities; is it Yahweh, Allah, some other unknown deity, some deity we are physically unable to identify because we are inadequate, or some deity that is not concerned with us mainly but is interested in a yet higher being than ourselves?  Or, is it best not to follow that deity at all?

WLC's  arguments  build  a  cumulative  case  for  Christianity.  The  arguments  invovling  Jesus Christ  is  evidence  supporting  Christianity. 

So, I propose a question that is more practical;

* Is theism -- or a specific type of theism -- better for the members of a society than non-theism?

Depends  on  what  you  mean  by  "better".  I  will  say  yes,  that  theism  is  better  because  of  what  Christianity  has  to  offer.  We  can  discuss  that  if  you like.

I will take the position that at best, theism does as much damage as it does good and has a net neutral impact on society.  I will grant that theisms may have provided a crude boot strapping effect to societies in the past and in less developed countries, but that those boosts to society come with some very high costs.  Costs that we no longer need to get a society going, or to make it's members more empathetic, more moral.

If you consider this question, or a variation of it, worthy of a conversation, discussion, or full debate, let me know.

Tell me  EXACTLY  what  we  will  be  debating  and  i  will  be  more  than  happy  to  accept  your  challenge  to  a  debate
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 05, 2010, 03:21:57 PM
A challenge to Majesty ...

What is  the  challenge?

So, I propose a question that is more practical;

* Is theism -- or a specific type of theism -- better for the members of a society than non-theism?

Tell me  EXACTLY  what  we  will  be  debating  and  i  will  be  more  than  happy  to  accept  your  challenge  to  a  debate

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...

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Narrow Mullen on January 05, 2010, 04:46:16 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Emily on January 05, 2010, 05:07:20 PM


* Is theism -- or a specific type of theism -- better for the members of a society than non-theism?

I will take the position that at best, theism does as much damage as it does good and has a net neutral impact on society.  I will grant that theisms may have provided a crude boot strapping effect to societies in the past and in less developed countries, but that those boosts to society come with some very high costs.  Costs that we no longer need to get a society going, or to make it's members more empathetic, more moral.


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)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes on January 05, 2010, 09:05:31 PM
Majesty, sorry for the delay.  I wrote up something earlier and had to put it aside just before I completed it.

So, I propose a question that is more practical;

* Is theism -- or a specific type of theism -- better for the members of a society than non-theism?

[ ... SNIP! ... ]

Tell me  EXACTLY  what  we  will  be  debating  and  i  will  be  more  than  happy  to  accept  your  challenge  to  a  debate

Better.  In the common usage of the word.  You know; happier, healthier, longer lives, better pay, higher education, fewer crimes, ... .  Better.

If you want to go over the details on what specific 'better' categories you want to limit the conversation to or expand the conversation to cover, I'd be glad to.[1]  Otherwise, I'll consider 'better' to be a loose category that we can agree on a case by case basis.  Let's go with the rule that any 'better' category is first proposed before it is used and that reasons must be given for why it is being proposed.  If the other person in the debate rejects that new 'better' category, they have to say why or ask for more details from the person proposing the new category.

For starters, I recommend the following as allowable but not required 'better' categories;[2]

* Marriage and divorce rates (first better, second worse)
* Crime (various categories including rape, murder, violent assaults, theft (including white collar)) (lower is better)
* Infant mortality rates (lower is better)
* Abortion rates (lower is better)
* Life expectancy rates (higher is better)
* STD rates (lower is better)
* Education level (more years formal education is better)
* Literacy levels (higher is better)
* Pay rates (based on buying power, not just raw pay) (higher is better)
* Employment rates (higher is better)
* Happiness (more is better)

I realize that each of the above basic categories have specific issues.  For example, often divorce is a good thing for the specific individuals involved, yet I think we can agree that divorce is something to avoid in general.  As such, lower divorce rates are considered 'better'.



As I can see that there may be a variety of ways to frame the basic question, I'll be precise on what the scope is.

Societies as a whole, not as individuals
As I stated earlier, the debate covers societies.[3]  This is not a cheerleading exercise where we each promote 'the best heroes' or 'the worst villians' and then compare our bias-reinforced favorite choices.  What is 'best' in individuals varies on who does that evaluation.

Unlike individuals, the general 'health' of societies on specific issues should be discoverable and unambiguous, and will also tell us more about how the basic question applies.

Pre-capita health of societies
Going with the idea of societies as a whole, a pre-capita average is a good measure.  As an example, if Flippenstan has a lower infant mortality rate and higher education level than Burgenstan -- (0.03% vs. 4% and 99% vs. 9% grade school graduation rate), it would rank higher (better) for those two categories.

Cross-society comparisons - national and regional
I recommend we limit comparisons of whole societies to chunks that are either whole countries or are clearly defined unambiguous regions (such as states in the United States).

Western democracies only
If we limit the discussion to 'Western democracies' -- democratic societies that have private property and private business ownership rights -- we can see how free people make a difference to the societies they are in.  We also eliminate any apples to hand grenade differences found when comparing closed dictatorial societies like North Korea and open societies like South Korea.

Note that geographically eastern nations such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, ... are included in this category.  China, even though they have introduced limited private ownership and democracy, still have substantial limitations on those and as such are not included.  Note that all countries have some governmental or quasi-governmental companies and government protected monopolies.  Because of that, a country should not be eliminated because of those specific monopolies if the market is otherwise free and open.

Compare as many similar societies to other similar societies when possible
There are geographic and other advantages and disadvantages that some countries and regions have that others do not.  These should be accounted for and identified when possible.

Avoid cherry picking in general
Using the previous example of Flippenstan and Burgenstan, it is likely that Flippen does rank lower than Burgen in some categories.  Yet if many countries or societies are included in our evaluation, a trend of 'better societies' apply to the question should be clear.  In that context, the societies that Flippen and Burgen represent can be shown to be in general 'better' or 'worse' than other societies.  There may be a correlation between societies that are theistic or non-theistic and societies that are in general 'better' or 'worse'.
 1. Note that specific categories such as "more theistic" or "more non-theistic" can not be asserted as "better" as they are what we're discussing.
 2. Depending on if they are reported at all for a society and done in a way that can be compared from society to society.  If this is not the case for any of these, then the category can not be used between those differing societies.
 3. This does not eliminate any discussion of subgroups, though.  If a subgroup is brought up, the argument for why that subgroups -- either flourishing or suffering -- pulls a specific society up or down.  Like all other parts of this discussion, this can not be done on a whim or by personal preference and must be unambiguous.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 06, 2010, 04:33:03 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Zankuu 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes on January 06, 2010, 01:16:12 PM
Did you review my last reply to you?  What are your comments.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 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...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Hermes 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Emily 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.



Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Emergence 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.    
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 12, 2010, 11:08:07 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.

I haven't yet received a PM outlining the specific topic, terms and format of discussion from either of the debaters.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady on January 13, 2010, 02:06:53 AM
Hey Maj, if you're so sure you won our debate, why do you keep trying to re-fight the battle elsewhere like some Confederate sympathizer re-fighting the Battle of Gettysburg with toy soldiers?  Since this thread is for debate challenges, not debate rehashes or debate alternate-history, why don't you find someone else to challenge to a Kalam debate, make a challenge on a different topic, or accept one of the other challenges?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 13, 2010, 02:59:36 AM
Ooops, DeM, you're being bad. This thread is not for hashing over debate points. You shouldn't have posted the response you did to Majesty.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 13, 2010, 03:03:18 AM
Hey Maj, if you're so sure you won our debate, why do you keep trying to re-fight the battle elsewhere like some Confederate sympathizer re-fighting the Battle of Gettysburg with toy soldiers?  Since this thread is for debate challenges, not debate rehashes or debate alternate-history, why don't you find someone else to challenge to a Kalam debate, make a challenge on a different topic, or accept one of the other challenges?

Ooops, DeM, you're being bad. This thread is not for hashing over debate points. You shouldn't have posted the response you did to Majesty.

I've asked Admin 1 to split out the above exchange between Majesty and myself (for some reason I can't split topics) into a separate Aftermath thread. What I am intending to illustrate here, and reasonably well I think, is that a formal debate cannot sensibly take place unless both parties agree on the terms of discussion. As far as I can tell, there was no such agreement on terms in the debate between Majesty and kcrady, and as such, both parties can - perhaps with some justification - claim to have 'won' it on their own unspecified terms. Both parties seemed to go into the discussion with very different ideas about what they and their opponent were indenting or expected to achieve, and that can only result in people talking at cross-purposes.

Majesty might, I suppose, claim victory on the basis that the KCA wasn't proved to be demonstrably false - though this is scant justification IMO, as one would have to be an idiot to accept a debate on almost any subject, had such been the terms explicitly set out beforehand.

kcrady can claim victory on the basis that you demonstrated the KCA rests upon a variety of hidden assumptions that one is not required to adopt, applies a notion of 'plausibility' to supernaturalistic notions for which the very idea of 'plausibility' is, well, "not even wrong" as Wolfgang Pauli would put it, but completely and utterly conjectural and unfalsifiable. While the merits of various alternative hypotheses are debatable (a point conceded by you from the outset) and also speculative, they are at least theoretically falsifiable in that it is theoretically possible to construct a mathematical or computer model of any specific hypothesis and see whether it would generate space-times like our own.

The result is a mess - everyone, including myself, ends up working with their own assumptions (not "bias", thank you very much Majesty!) about what the terms of debate really are, when they should have been stated explicitly in the first place. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have. I want debate proponents to state, in their own words, precisely what they intend to establish in the course of their debate. Then we can assess people on whether they achieved what they set out to achieve. It's the only fair way of doing it - even if it means some haggling over debate terms between antagonists beforehand.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 13, 2010, 03:16:55 AM
The result is a mess. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have.

Rather than "formal" structure, I support PRECISELY defined and NARROW topics that can really be FOCUSED on. A debate ala WLC is especially bad, because one of WLC's tricks is to broaden the argument to the point of diffusion--putting his opponent on the defensive in an attempt to respond to all the points. I've watched him do that in almost every debate: Opening--a laundry list of points; closing, a review of all the points his opponent FAILED to address.

The debates need to be so focused that each person has to HAMMER. Under those conditions, there's usually a winner and a loser. Any possibility of vagueness or broadening the argument, and the potential loser will pull a debate into the appearance of at least a draw.

IMO, the ideal debate would consist of 100 or more 3-sentence posts, rather than 20 posts of 200 sentences each! Anything else is just too exhausting for both the participants and the audience.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 13, 2010, 03:27:04 AM
The result is a mess. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have.

Rather than "formal" structure, I support PRECISELY defined and NARROW topics that can really be FOCUSED on. A debate ala WLC is especially bad, because one of WLC's tricks is to broaden the argument to the point of diffusion--putting his opponent on the defensive in an attempt to respond to all the points. I've watched him do that in almost every debate: Opening--a laundry list of points; closing, a review of all the points his opponent FAILED to address.

The debates need to be so focused that each person has to HAMMER. Under those conditions, there's usually a winner and a loser. Any possibility of vagueness or broadening the argument, and the potential loser will pull a debate into the appearance of at least a draw.

IMO, the ideal debate would consist of 100 or more 3-sentence posts, rather than 20 posts of 200 sentences each! Anything else is just too exhausting for both the participants and the audience.

By "formal structure" I mean that debate proponents must agree on and submit a specific set of rules governing the debate (which might include "no post shall be longer than 400 words", for example) and as referee I will enforce whatever rules the debaters impose upon themselves. I think, AT MINIMUM, it should include:

- The specific motion being proposed (preferably in a format that would fit into "This House {believes/agrees/deplores etc.}...") - this shall constitute the topic of the debate and I will be expected to enforce this
- What the proponent(s) of the motion must seek to establish or demonstrate (if they fail, the opponent is deemed to have 'won' the debate)
- Number and order of posts (e.g. four posts per person, alternativing between debaters, proponent to start)
- Limits on posting (word limits if any, are consecutive posts allowed, is editing or deleting allowed)
- Time limits on posting (e.g. if no reply within a week, the forum member is deemed to have withdrawn from debate, but quick-fire debates could impose more stringent time limits)

I agree with you about WLC, though. A rather disingenuous piece of trickery.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty on January 13, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
Yeah  i  agree  Deus.  One  thing  that  I  am  REALLY  in  favor  of,  is  that  both  participants  in  the  debate  can  have  unlimited  space  to  make  his/her  case.  If  you  can  set  it  up  like  that,  that  would  be  perfect.  I  am  waiting  on  the  next  debate.  These  posters  on  here  are  starting  to  look  like  something  to  eat.  And  I  am  STARVING.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Zankuu on January 13, 2010, 06:32:23 PM
Yeah  i  agree  Deus.  One  thing  that  I  am  REALLY  in  favor  of,  is  that  both  participants  in  the  debate  can  have  unlimited  space  to  make  his/her  case.  If  you  can  set  it  up  like  that,  that  would  be  perfect.  I  am  waiting  on  the  next  debate.  These  posters  on  here  are  starting  to  look  like  something  to  eat.  And  I  am  STARVING.

Did you even read Deus' or GMT's posts? They're talking about making the posts shorter and more precise back and forths[1]. The opposite of the huge 20,000 word haymakers you and kcrady were throwing at each other.
 1. Which I completely support. I think it makes the threads much more interesting and easier to follow point by point.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 13, 2010, 11:28:24 PM
Yeah  i  agree  Deus.  One  thing  that  I  am  REALLY  in  favor  of,  is  that  both  participants  in  the  debate  can  have  unlimited  space  to  make  his/her  case.  If  you  can  set  it  up  like  that,  that  would  be  perfect.  I  am  waiting  on  the  next  debate.  These  posters  on  here  are  starting  to  look  like  something  to  eat.  And  I  am  STARVING.

I don't agree. In any "stand-up" debate, debaters would be time limited. Debaters are thereby encouraged to keep their points concise and stick to the topic at hand, and not attempt to bury their opponent in a wall of words. The same should apply here, I think.

And again, I would drop the "attitude" if I were you. You didn't cover yourself with glory in the last debate, your protests notwithstanding. All that's standing between you and the next debate is agreement on the terms of discussion. I've provided a template for such above.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 14, 2010, 12:46:03 AM
In any "stand-up" debate, debaters would be time limited. Debaters are thereby encouraged to keep their points concise and stick to the topic at hand, and not attempt to bury their opponent in a wall of words. The same should apply here, I think.

That's why I say again that the very BEST way to accomplish that is NOT with rules but with topic. The more NARROW and LIMITED the topic, the less opportunity to avoid the topic.

An example would be, instead of the entire kalam argument (or an entire BIBLEGOD argument, of which kalam may be only a small part), one could debate: "Can it be determined that no other spacetime existed before the Big Bang singularity of our spacetime existed?"

In fact, if Majesty would like to debate THAT topic with me I would be happy to oblige. I would take the side that such a determination CANNOT be made. For that debate I would not feel compelled to place any limitations on posting time intervals or text length. I think I could make at least my initial statements quite short and concise.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 14, 2010, 07:37:38 AM
That's why I say again that the very BEST way to accomplish that is NOT with rules but with topic. The more NARROW and LIMITED the topic, the less opportunity to avoid the topic.

You say that like it's an either/or scenario. It's eminently possible to do both. I also don't agree that it's "best" merely to have a (supposedly) narrow topic, but no rules. I do advise setting some limits - at the very least, I need to know when a debate can be declared over, and I'd prefer not to leave it so open-ended that it could run on for weeks. If you intend to be concise, great, but will your opponent be concise or will they attempt to bury your prose in their own?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 14, 2010, 01:42:43 PM
At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty on January 14, 2010, 02:43:58 PM
Did you even read Deus' or GMT's posts? They're talking about making the posts shorter and more precise back and forths[1]. The opposite of the huge 20,000 word haymakers you and kcrady were throwing at each other.
 1. Which I completely support. I think it makes the threads much more interesting and easier to follow point by point.

I  agreed  with  the  little  bit  of  what  i  read  from  his  post.  Do  whatever  yall  need  to  do.  Im  ready.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Majesty on January 14, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.

Send  me  a  pm  with  the  topic  of  the  debate,  and  what  you  will  be  defending.  Lets  go.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: GetMeThere on January 14, 2010, 08:37:40 PM
At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.

Send  me  a  pm  with  the  topic  of  the  debate,  and  what  you  will  be  defending.  Lets  go.

The topic of the debate is specified in reply #67. It's in quotes. Please affirm that you understand it and that you are willing to debate on the "yes" side of the question: It CAN be determined that no other spacetime could have existed before ours, or in "another place" even currently. As I specified in reply #67 I am taking the "no" side: It CANNOT be determined that no other spacetime could have existed before ours, or other than ours.

I don't want this to end like the last one, where I took a fair amount of trouble to compose a statement, and then (after reading my statement) you decided not to debate.

I would also like to know BEFORE starting this debate whether you intend to also debate Hermes. If you are going to debate Hermes then I prefer to wait until that debate is finished (or did you decline that debate, too?).
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 20, 2010, 03:24:59 PM
I take it that with Majesty still languishing in the ER and Fran apparently AWOL, we currently have no open topics for debate...?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: knot on January 28, 2010, 02:19:05 AM

Is this the proper thread to ask for or to see proposed debates?

Not that I have one particular debate in mind.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 28, 2010, 03:17:59 AM
Yep. :)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: knot on January 28, 2010, 03:56:32 AM
I was about to post this in "State of the Union speech" thread.

Would anyone like to debate this?  




It would be a different story if she/he (who writes his lines anyways,  f ucken puppet!) said "Ala Bless america" , Or May the Goat Bless america, or God Bless america.  Whats the difference it politics.

Here is the "Real Question": Does anyone know of a Government that is in power that is honest and true, elected for the people by the people and rules that way? If you do let me know, make room i'm coming in!

Quick Quiz: 300+ american's pay 10$ a day in taxes = 3 billion+ a day in revenue.

 Ok half of that equals 1.5 billion$  a day. Average month 30 days equals 45 billion$ a month times 12 months = $540,000,000.00 in taxes.

That is just taxes and that is only at $5.00 for 300,000,000 people a day, no other revenue brought in other than that. You tell me they have a problem with money. Understand that 1 billion seconds ago it was 1959!


A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age.

A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.


PS: If a Moderator or if a Administrator wants to take this out because it is  politically incorrect. Well that just shows you now doesn't it. Well the mod the admin and myself know that I am correct about politics!





Rules of the debate:

I am for that this is fact. Government is a fictitious part of life.


1. Is what is wrote here truth. Not a bunch of bullshit lies.
2. Myself and or one other debate about such said, against 2 others.
3. Belittlement is not allowed.
4. Sentence structure as short as possible to get your point across.
5. Any source of relevant information is valid. Small as possible quotes.
6. Debate will start firstly by finalizing the rules of the debate in the actual debate thread.




 So would this be on how you would start a debate?


Edit 1.:Sentence structure.



Edit 2.:

 
Ok I will rephrase that. Would anyone like to debate this post.

I made up a fictitious debate topic to see if anyone is actual checking this thread and are able to debate. Also if and how to have a topic of debate.

I don't see a list of, or area of or for debate topics.

 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Fran on January 28, 2010, 10:53:24 AM
Hi Kcrady... I've never done this before in a forum like this.  How do you want to start?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady on January 28, 2010, 07:28:18 PM
Hi Fran.  I think this should proceed in a manner similar to a formal debate.  Each of us makes an opening statement, followed by alternating rebuttal posts, then at the end by concluding statements.  See an example of a previous debate I was involved in here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=11160.0).  Since both of us have a tendency to write epic multi-post posts, I think it would be good to have a rule limiting each response to one post.  This will encourage us both to be concise and focused in our arguments.  Since it takes more space to rebut a claim than to make one, we may want to stipulate an "outline" in advance (so we can go through the claims of both sides one at a time) and/or some limit on the number of claims that can be made and need to be addressed by the opponent.

My idea of an outline would be something like this:

1) Validating the "Four Minimal Facts" (discussion on how "solid" they are historically)

2) Supernatural vs. Mundane (discussion of how much priority natural explanations should have over supernatural ones, whether "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or not)

3) Is a Natural Explanation of the "Four Minimal Facts" Impossible? (the heart of the debate--you would presumably make the case that no plausible natural explanation is possible and therefore it is necessary to resort to a supernatural or paranormal explanation, I would argue for the reverse and provide at least one plausible scenario for how Jesus' body could have turned up missing, and for the claims of post-mortem appearances.  I would stipulate that no single explanation is necessary any more than a single explanation is required for the start of World War I.[1]  The explanations need only be plausible singly and together.)     

I welcome the presence of a "referee" to keep us on track.  Would you accept Admin 1?  IIRC, you considered him/her to be fair in the other debate.  If not (or if Admin 1 can't/won't take the job), are there any other Mods you would suggest, or members you might propose for temporary mod-promotion to act as referee?  Admin 1, would you accept the job?

Mods, could you please move this discussion of the debate setup to the Debate Challenges thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=11385.0) now or when we're ready to start?  Thanks.  I'll copy this post to Fran in a PM to make sure he gets the message of where this pre-debate "setup" discussion can be found.

Thanks!
 1. No historian would try to argue that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the singular and sole cause for World War I.  Rather, it was a confluence of contributing factors such as the alliance structure in place at the time, the personalities and goals of the leaders involved, the decline of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, competition among major European powers for colonies and resources, etc..
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: knot on January 29, 2010, 01:57:45 AM

Is there a thread that has a list of possible debates, and or a place to initiate a debate topic?

(You may also like to see edit 2.: on my last post .)

 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: voodoo child on January 29, 2010, 08:21:18 PM
Quote
Would anyone like to debate this?   

Knot, stay out of American politics, you are a Canadian. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: knot on January 29, 2010, 09:55:42 PM

True enuff voodoo but I did mention something else in my last post also.

I don't see a list of, or area of for debate topics.

If this is the right right place to see a list of possible debates, I don't see any.

Oh and reread my post second last post. You may see a few things that are not quite seeable on a quick glance at that post. The whole post is debatable.

I am for that this is fact. Government is a fictitious part of life.  <<<<That part and other parts if you take a better look see.  To debate this topic, I would be on the side that government is not fictitious at all, it is life that surrounds us all.

Anyways for this forum I would think this debate forum is a good thing.

I like the idea and very interesting. 

One thing is, where is the list of possible debates?

 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on January 30, 2010, 05:16:11 AM
One thing is, where is the list of possible debates?

I would rather hope that a forum member that wants to have a debate on a particular matter would post the topic here.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Cynic on February 22, 2010, 07:52:23 AM
Quote
Would anyone like to debate this?   

Knot, stay out of American politics, you are a Canadian. 

Like it or not though American politics have extreme consequences for the rest of the world. A small example Australia got pulled into two wars within a decade because of America.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on February 23, 2010, 10:21:40 PM
The question is, if knot is allowed to debate someone - will he be allowed to drown his opponent in YouTube videos?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on February 24, 2010, 03:19:47 AM
The question is, if knot is allowed to debate someone - will he be allowed to drown his opponent in YouTube videos?

Personally, I would advise debaters to have a "no video" rule. I think it violates the principle of "equal time"; whereas even relatively long debate responses can be read in a few minutes at most, if you post a video, you're effectively asking someone to sit and watch it through in order to glean whatever point it is you're trying to make. Further, the value of videos as references is questionable, given that they can seldom if ever be considered to be primary sources (unlike, say, a journal article).

But, debaters make their own rules. It's up to them.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: voodoo child on March 02, 2010, 11:47:46 PM
you know what knot, go for it. I think your ass will be handed to you in small pieces. but hey its you're ass.   &)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Servant of Allah on March 24, 2010, 06:25:43 AM
Hi

I'm ready to debate a Christian, but I prefer him to be  priest or head of church, as most Christians don't know their own religion or are not able to resolve controversial issues in the bible

Please assign an administrator to create the debate
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 24, 2010, 07:12:12 AM
You'd best find an appropriate Christian, first.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Petey on March 24, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Quote from: SoA
I'm ready to debate a Christian, but I prefer him to be  priest or head of church, as most Christians don't know their own religion or are not able to resolve controversial issues in the bible

Good luck finding someone like that here.  Fortunately, there are plenty of non-Christians here who know the religion and the bible better than most priests.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 24, 2010, 07:46:46 AM
I've already asked Bible student to be the debating christian. He has not yet responded to my PM. Neither have you Servant of Allah...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Gimpy on March 24, 2010, 10:14:42 AM
And I don't think he should.

I think this person needs to go to a christian board if he wants to debate a christian/church leader/priest, etc.

What are we now, the work-out rooms for muslims to practice their conversion tactics on?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Servant of Allah on March 24, 2010, 10:40:07 AM
I've already asked Bible student to be the debating christian. He has not yet responded to my PM. Neither have you Servant of Allah...
I agree
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 24, 2010, 11:03:26 AM
...you agree that you havn't responded to his PM?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 24, 2010, 03:53:26 PM
^lol rofl lmao
That was my exact response.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 24, 2010, 04:00:19 PM
@Gimpy,

I would like to see a debate between a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very educational to everyone.

This was actually posted on this thread some time back. Many people agreed that they'd like to see this debate go down. As I pointed out to an atheist forum would be the ideal place to have such a debate. No accusations of bias will be be raised (hopefully).   

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Gimpy on March 24, 2010, 05:53:52 PM
@Gimpy,


This was actually posted on this thread some time back. Many people agreed that they'd like to see this debate go down. As I pointed out to an atheist forum would be the ideal place to have such a debate. No accusations of bias will be be raised (hopefully).   



My comment wasn't about his debating a christian, it was his demand (more or less) the TYPE of christian - a priest or some other religious leader within whatever christian sect or organization.

Debating with a christian, no big deal, but if he wants to hone up on his verbal debate with religious leaders, he really needs to do that somewhere else.

But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on March 24, 2010, 05:56:56 PM
I think a debate like this would be of great interest to the forum. I hope we can get something going. However, as has been said, I doubt we have any priests or the like on board, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Servant of Allah on March 25, 2010, 01:36:19 AM
I think you can also read some famous debates on the net (I'll search you some)

It will help you get an idea about the differences between the 2 religions
here is some points, I hope that you think about it, while reading:

[modbreak]

Attempts to start a debate are not allowed in this thread

[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 25, 2010, 03:56:54 AM
^Save it for the actual debate. And remember that you'll be expected to backup any claims you made with evidence. If this debate is going down it's going to have to a proper debate, not just an argument where each side insists it is right.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on March 25, 2010, 08:35:02 AM
I think you can also read some famous debates on the net (I'll search you some)

It will help you get an idea about the differences between the 2 religions
here is some points, I hope that you think about it, while reading:

The same thing could be given to you Servant of Allah. Atheists could give you famous debates and hope that you think about them while reading.

Don't start a debate in this thread with the presupposition that you are correct, that's why I deleted your remarks. Save it for a debate or a thread in the main forum. This thread is only to arrange debate challenges.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 25, 2010, 11:50:40 AM
Bible student has just informed me that he'd rather not participate in the debate...
So does any one have a christian candidate?
You could even try inviting someone whose not a member to come participate...
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 25, 2010, 12:08:35 PM
Well, considerd:  Regardless of anyone's religious persuasion, or lack thereof, why would anyone want to try to "debate" someone like SoA?  I know that if I wanted to debate a Muslim, I'd probably seek to debate you, since you're clearly capable of actually debating.  BibleStudent probably feels similarly.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 25, 2010, 01:58:27 PM
Well yes that is exactly why Biblestudent declined the debate. And I sympathies with his decision, but unfortunately people like SoA exist. Many muslims though share his view points, and in order to fight these ideologies we must first fully understand them. Even though I detest SoA as much as any of you (probably more), I still think a debate with him would be err... 'enlightening'.
As for my self.... I'm not really one to debate for Islam as my views are very.... unorthodox. I'd rather see as more main stream mind set dissected.         
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 25, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
Perhaps you should debate SoA?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Servant of Allah on March 26, 2010, 10:42:48 AM
I think you can also read some famous debates on the net (I'll search you some)

It will help you get an idea about the differences between the 2 religions
here is some points, I hope that you think about it, while reading:

The same thing could be given to you Servant of Allah. Atheists could give you famous debates and hope that you think about them while reading.

Don't start a debate in this thread with the presupposition that you are correct, that's why I deleted your remarks. Save it for a debate or a thread in the main forum. This thread is only to arrange debate challenges.
I agree
I'm ready to make a debate with an Atheist but we will not the big jump in one true
Instead of debating if Islam is correct or not
I propose a debate title of
"Islam can not be proven wrong, while other religions can be proved to be false"

I think this will help a lot of you clearing false ideas about Islam

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on March 26, 2010, 12:05:53 PM
OK, do we have any takers on this debate challenge?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Emily on March 26, 2010, 12:14:27 PM
OK, do we have any takers on this debate challenge?

So does any one have a christian candidate?
You could even try inviting someone whose not a member to come participate...

Perhaps invite Maj back to the forum?!? He obviously likes to debate, and he has some arguments (even if they are not his own). I wonder how well he'll debate members of other religions.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 26, 2010, 01:59:09 PM

I'm ready to make a debate with an Atheist but we will not the big jump in one true



I think Admin1 was referring to this challenge. Yet I agree it would be 'nice' to have majesty debate SoA too.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 26, 2010, 02:44:48 PM
I would be interested in debating Bad Pear on the supposed objectivity of certain moral values, if he is interested.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: I am become relevant on March 26, 2010, 04:01:33 PM

"Islam can not be proven wrong, while other religions can be proved to be false"



You might as well take that part out of the debate. As nearly everyone on this site is atheist, I doubt they disagree with that part. :-)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jazzman on March 26, 2010, 04:48:09 PM
"Islam can not be proven wrong, ...
Neither can it be proven right.  Like Christianity, Islam's tenets are unprovable and unfalsifiable.  That makes a debate about Islam a waste of time.

Islam is as false a religion as any other; or, it's as true as any other.  Take your pick.

Jazzman
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Narrow Mullen on March 26, 2010, 05:15:51 PM
Quote
I agree
I'm ready to make a debate with an Atheist but we will not the big jump in one true
Instead of debating if Islam is correct or not
I propose a debate title of
"Islam can not be proven wrong, while other religions can be proved to be false"
If SoA wants to debate an atheist, and a christian cannot be found, I'd like to try debating him. I've never had a debate with a Muslim, and would like to get the experience.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Gimpy on March 26, 2010, 08:15:33 PM
Please tell me how this:


Instead of debating if Islam is correct or not

Is materially different from THIS:

I propose a debate title of
"Islam can not be proven wrong, while other religions can be proved to be false"


Sounds like a sandbag, to me.

Edited to add a word.

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady on March 27, 2010, 02:21:16 AM
You know what I'd like to see?

Servant of Allah!  Infidel Mohammad!  FIGHT!  (Well, "DEBATE!"...) :D
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Servant of Allah on March 27, 2010, 02:29:25 AM
Quote
I agree
I'm ready to make a debate with an Atheist but we will not the big jump in one true
Instead of debating if Islam is correct or not
I propose a debate title of
"Islam can not be proven wrong, while other religions can be proved to be false"
If SoA wants to debate an atheist, and a christian cannot be found, I'd like to try debating him. I've never had a debate with a Muslim, and would like to get the experience.
You are welcome

What is the procedure? should an admin start a debate and be judge, does he give a score?
the subject will be "Nothing can be used to prove Islam wrong,  while other religions can be proved wrong"
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Bad Pear on March 27, 2010, 10:36:49 PM
I would be interested in debating Bad Pear on the supposed objectivity of certain moral values, if he is interested.

I will accept good sir.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on March 28, 2010, 08:34:14 AM
What is the procedure? should an admin start a debate and be judge, does he give a score?
the subject will be "Nothing can be used to prove Islam wrong,  while other religions can be proved wrong"

I will start a debate thread momentarily. There is no "score", it's up to the readers to determine for themselves who made their points the best.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Inactive_1 on March 28, 2010, 08:39:50 AM
Here is the Debate thread (I had to shorten the title a bit). Servant of Allah will go first and make an opening statement -

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=13458.0
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: SplashKay on June 28, 2010, 09:22:55 AM
Ok, since the other guy didn't ask, I will.

I've invited the forum to argue any point with me one on one.
I've got a list of seven, and it's probably going to grow, so could I please get a mod for this?

Ta.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Narrow Mullen on June 29, 2010, 03:50:13 PM
Alright, Mod 25 has messaged Deus regarding the debate between me and SplashKay, the debate will include the following;

Quote
To confirm, the debate will be regarding evolution, where you will present points against it, and I will use the best of my knowledge to rebuttle your points. It would also be nice if you had an alternative theory, which I could make points against, and we could discuss.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Ambassador Pony on June 29, 2010, 05:46:18 PM
Include a ground rule about citations and copypasta.

I think it will quickly devolve into:

"I read this at this link, disprove it!" (you do the heavy lifting and take it apart, then Splash simply tracks down another website reinforcing his/her ignorant inculcated fantasy and repeats without ever facing the truth).
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Deus ex Machina on June 30, 2010, 05:08:13 PM
Hi,

Owing to a number of external commitments and pressures at the present time, I've asked Admin 1 and Moderator_A25 to seek another moderator for the Debate Forums, as I do not feel that I am able to devote the time and energy to moderating formal debates that the participants should expect and deserve. I hope this does not unduly delay the proceedings, and offer my apologies to those affected.

I'd like to offer my apologies in particular to those who had to wait for some time for a reply to my PMs owing to prolonged absences - and wish the best of luck to all who participate in future debates.

Best wishes

DeM
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on July 07, 2010, 04:10:01 PM
Hear Ye!  Hear Ye!

As newly appointed Grand Overlord Mod of Debate, I hear your request and in my beneficience, I grant thusly.

Ok, since the other guy didn't ask, I will.

I've invited the forum to argue any point with me one on one.
I've got a list of seven, and it's probably going to grow, so could I please get a mod for this?

Ta.


SplashKay,

Please name your opponent and your topic.  As I find applying pronouns to you to be awkward, please also provide your gender. 

You may debate in any format you choose, however if it becomes an unruly mess I will descend upon your thead like a legion of pissed seraphim and its end will be swift and terrible.  I strongly recommend you (plural) agree to a narrow scope, and a limited number of posts.  For example:

A - Point
B - Reply
B - Counterpoint
A - Reply

B - Reply to the reply

A - Summation
B - Summation

Extra reading material for you on the topic of limited posts, by my esteemed predecessor, whose enormous shoes I can only hope to fill: Deus ex Machina (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=12779.0)

I intend to stay out of the fray as much as possible and enter only if I am summoned or if I find an egregious problem.  Fair enough?


Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: SplashKay on July 08, 2010, 11:56:37 AM
[modbreak]
removed unnecessary quoting.  There.  Much tidier and easier to read.

~ your affectionate uncle, Screwtape
[/modbreak]

Sorry, im a bit busy at the moment personally to have heated debates.
when the summer holidays come along, I might be able to find some time.

Im learning how to code with Python for a project, and it's taking up quite a bit of my time.

Sorry anyone who wanted a debate, your just gonna have to wait a bit.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on July 08, 2010, 12:29:39 PM
Well.  That was anti-climactic.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Foi on August 03, 2010, 01:28:44 AM
I challenge Omen to a debate on whether or not I'm actually trying to learn about the scientific method here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15129.0). Or is this against the rules?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Operator_020 on August 03, 2010, 07:30:59 AM
I challenge Omen to a debate on whether or not I'm actually trying to learn about the scientific method here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15129.0). Or is this against the rules?

I do not believe it is against the rules, per se, but I think debating your own motives would degenerate into a pissing match. 

I would have no problem setting up a thread for you two to discuss the scientific method and its strengths and weaknesses, however.   If you would like to try that, let me know.

peace,
020
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 07, 2010, 08:38:50 AM
I would like to see a debate between a Muslim and a Christian. I think it would be very educational to everyone.

I'll be the Christian if you've got the Muslim
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL on September 07, 2010, 08:46:40 AM
I'll be the Christian if you've got the Muslim

I'm pretty sure they've all managed to get themselves banned (we don't currently have any).  :D
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Operator_020 on September 07, 2010, 09:11:37 AM
This is a BYOM forum at the moment.  I believe Gnu is a member in a muslim forum.  You might ask him if he has any you can borrow.

020
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 07, 2010, 09:12:34 AM
I'll be the Christian if you've got the Muslim

I'm pretty sure they've all managed to get themselves banned (we don't currently have any).  :D

Well let me know when you get one.

(and I'm sorry if that was a really stale reply, I've only just arrived here at this board)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 07, 2010, 04:30:04 PM
UP, when are you going to nut up and debate Bible Student?

Why are you afraid? Is it because the devil wants you to go on living like a dirty evilutionist?

 

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL on September 07, 2010, 04:35:13 PM
UP, when are you going to nut up and debate Bible Student?

Seconded.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: UniversityPastor on September 07, 2010, 09:16:42 PM
UP, when are you going to nut up and debate Bible Student?

Seconded.

I didn't see that that challenge was out there.

Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: BibleStudent on September 08, 2010, 03:15:57 PM
UP, when are you going to nut up and debate Bible Student?

Seconded.

I didn't see that that challenge was out there.

Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.

UP-  What is your position on this topic?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Operator_020 on September 09, 2010, 07:59:25 AM

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us)

Ooo, a post too far. Actually, I was going to break this up two posts ago.  

This is an interesting conversation but not one to be had in this thread.  I do not want to kill it, so I have opened a debate/discussion thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15715.0) and commentary thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15716.0) in Discussion room 1.  I encourage you to use them.

Right now the discussion is limited to BibleStudent and University Pastor, but if they both agree, Timo - or anyone else they mutually agree to - may join.  But please let me know.

Go forth and argue.

020
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: MathIsCool on September 14, 2010, 12:40:24 PM
Way back in 2009, Deus Ex Machina offered up a topic for debate:

"This House Believes that the innate capacity for understanding of right and wrong indicates a moral law-giver."

After participating briefly in a thread that is now in the Bottomless Pit (abandon all hope ye who enter here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15098.0)) I suggested in there that a better format for such a discussion might be a formal-ish debate, with post limits and word count limits.

Thus, my proposal:

We debate the question "Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural?" (Which seems to be where the thread is going, away from "are morals objective?")  To put in the format of a debate, it would be

"This house believes that the basis for morality is not natural, but supernatural"

The format I'd suggest would be: (word counts adapted from times here (http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Standards:Lincoln-Douglas_Debate))[1]

Aff: 1200 word opening statement
Neg: 1400 word opening statement
Aff: 800 word rebuttal
Neg: 1200 word rebuttal/closing
Aff: 600 word closing

Each debater would have 96 hours to make their reply or forfeit the debate.  This would allow enough time to construct well thought out arguments and responses.

I can take the affirmative[2] and I presume lots of folks on this board would be happy to take the negative.  ;)

Let me know if anyone is interested...

Thanks!

edit: word counts were a little too stingy, upping them.
 1. That site mentions cross-x, which I skipped because I felt it would be hard to wedge that into an internet forum like this one.  If others have a good idea of how to handle that, I'd be more than happy to include it if desired.
 2. though others are welcome to take it in my place
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: curiousgeorge on November 07, 2010, 11:37:31 PM
Where u at C?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: C on November 07, 2010, 11:39:01 PM
Would you like to post the topic of the debate and who will be in the debate?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: curiousgeorge on November 07, 2010, 11:39:58 PM
What are we supposed to be debating?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: C on November 07, 2010, 11:41:33 PM
What are we supposed to be debating?

Take your pick. Proof of the Judeo-Christian God, proof of that God's love, whatever. Also here are the rules for the discussion board: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=11221.0

By the way, be serious. None of that troll-stuff in the General section you posted.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: curiousgeorge on November 07, 2010, 11:45:50 PM
I openly acknowledge my beliefs. You decide what you want to discuss.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on November 08, 2010, 03:57:22 AM
You are the one showing interest in a the formal debate section, CG.  Why don't you pick a topic?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Operator_020 on November 08, 2010, 08:52:06 AM
Hi all.

Once you settle on a topic I will need to know the format.  Will it be formal?  If so, how many rebuttals?  Whom will go first?  This is important.  I see the lack of agreement on format (or following anything they had agreed to) as the main reason for the failure of the debate between BibleStudent and UniversityPastor.  So please get the rules down now.

By the way, be serious. None of that troll-stuff in the General section you posted.

Trollery in the debate area will be met with swift and terrible punishment.  Then I will show up at your house to confiscate your computer.     


happy posting
020
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on February 02, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Mods,

UP would like to discuss #4 of the 10 questions, "Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?" with me here in a discussion room. Can we have that set up? 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 02, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
And Mods

You can archive or whatever (nothing happened, it's not worth much) the debate between myself and DoL. It wasn't working. Not his fault, not mine. Wrong subject.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Death over Life on February 03, 2011, 04:49:06 PM
And Mods

You can archive or whatever (nothing happened, it's not worth much) the debate between myself and DoL. It wasn't working. Not his fault, not mine. Wrong subject.

I wouldn't even say wrong subject. It was just real life got in our way for the debate we were wanting. When the time comes again, I would love to continue where we left off. I still think it is very valid.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on March 15, 2011, 01:24:57 PM
NTS,

This post is to work out the details of the discussion.  We need to establish three things:

1. the topic.  I am not particular what we talk about but I would like it to be limited in scope.  I would rather not start off talking about, say, kalam and end up fighting about evolution.
2. rules.  Who goes first, format, expected frequency of posting, and anything else you'd like to include.
3. how long this is going to go.  It can be a limited number of posts, or some other measure, but I'd rather not leave it open ended.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on March 16, 2011, 07:53:17 AM

Debate cancelled. 

Parthian shots and off topic crossfire removed.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: NZer on March 19, 2011, 05:05:28 AM
I would like to suggest (for someone else as I am not presently able to participate) the debate:
Jesus Christ (as set out in the gospels) is a historically verifiable person.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Graybeard on March 19, 2011, 07:23:45 AM
I think it would be fair if the person who wishes the debate makes his/her own post. To remove all doubt, that person should also include the proposition that they will defend.

For example, the poster might propose, "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the New Testament, actually existed as a real individual." or "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the Bible, is fictitious and merely embodies folk tales and ideas of the time."
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on March 20, 2011, 07:27:36 AM

Hi NZer


I would like to suggest (for someone else as I am not presently able to participate) the debate:
Jesus Christ (as set out in the gospels) is a historically verifiable person.

Thanks for the suggestion.  The way it works is exactly the way Greybeard said it should.  If outside this thread you can talk other members into debating this topic, then good for you.  Otherwise this is for debates to be set up by participants. 

FYI, we did have a jesus debate recently here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17210.0.html)

Regards,
Screwtape
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 21, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 21, 2011, 04:07:54 PM
In a thread regarding healing of amputees, I said:

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

Anyone care to discuss?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: naemhni on March 21, 2011, 04:13:28 PM
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.

I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 21, 2011, 04:23:21 PM
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.

I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
Sure, although it's amusing to hear that, as i get lots of grief for limiting my participation.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on March 21, 2011, 05:43:33 PM
You are not obligated to respond to every person, just to every point.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: naemhni on March 21, 2011, 05:51:34 PM
Quote
I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
Sure, although it's amusing to hear that, as i get lots of grief for limiting my participation.

First of all, you wouldn't get any grief for limiting your participation if you would simply say, "OK, there's ten of you and one of me.  I need to slow down for a minute and catch my breath."  We would respect that.  All of us here (including me) have participated in debates in which we were badly outnumbered.  We know how overwhelming it can be.

Second, though, and more importantly: you're asking for a formal, one-on-one debate, which is different in several important ways from a time management point of view (I have quite a bit more going on in my life than WWGHA).

If you say something that I've heard and refuted a thousand times before (which is likely; trust me, I've been doing this for decades), I can't just roll my eyes and decide to wait for someone else to deal with it, as I often do in standard threads.  I have to handle it myself.  This takes additional time, especially inasmuch as I haven't gotten around to writing up stock response to those points that I can copy and paste.

Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.

I would hope that fair warning given in advance about a particular circumstance would be treated with some respect.  If you know what's coming, you know what to expect.

Anyway.  PM screwtape when you're ready, Black Knight, and we'll have at each other.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: IAmFirst on March 21, 2011, 07:08:10 PM
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)

We ARE discussing Job and not A then B, or if not B than C again, are we?? :D

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: naemhni on March 21, 2011, 07:29:03 PM
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)

To be fair: the point of a debate challenge is a one-on-one encounter.  He challenged me, I accepted, it should stay there.  Those wanting to debate him on the same point (or any other point, for that matter) should give their own challenges, which he can accept or decline as he chooses.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: IAmFirst on March 21, 2011, 07:40:01 PM
Oh, well. I thought it could be three-on-three as well.

I just hope it stays on Job and doesn't stray too much. I don't think that would be your fault, PD. :D

I'll post in the comments section. Please PM me when you're going to start,
as I may not have a lot of time on the net either.

Thanks, --- IAF
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 22, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.
LOL. I kind of gathered that.

So how does this get started?

And is anyone going to take me on regarding god healing amputees?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 22, 2011, 09:11:10 AM
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)
If your positions aren't covered in my discussion with pd, start a new thread.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: JeffPT on March 22, 2011, 12:02:35 PM
And is anyone going to take me on regarding god healing amputees?

What is the position you are trying to argue?  Is this in reference to post 154 in this thread?  The miracle thing? 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 22, 2011, 12:17:22 PM
velkyn has accepted the challenge on Why won't god heal amputees, so please set that up as well. That's all I'll do for now. Thanks.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on March 22, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 23, 2011, 07:13:06 AM
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on March 23, 2011, 07:50:00 AM
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.
I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists."  in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it.  I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable.   i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end.  I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing".  I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 23, 2011, 08:23:58 AM
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.
I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists."  in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it.  I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable.   i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end.  I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing".  I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field.
I'm Ok with the removal of "reasonably," but I think we run into the same problem, perhaps even more so, with "plausible." Further, the web site itself stresses the importance of "unambiguous"  and "ambiguous," which is why I chose "unambiguous" in the first place. So, I propose:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on March 23, 2011, 08:35:31 AM
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter on March 23, 2011, 08:53:42 AM
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: relativetruth on March 23, 2011, 09:28:14 AM
Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

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!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on March 23, 2011, 09:31:07 AM
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.

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.  How about if we don't count requests for clarification in the post number?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Voter 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: relativetruth 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Alzael 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape 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 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,11385.msg254316.html#msg254316) of this thread and the Debate Rules thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,11221.0.html).

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

regards,
Screwtape
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Timo 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.

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2011, 07:21:03 AM
Does MathIsCool agree? 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: MathIsCool 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Timo 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: curiousgirl 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: C on November 11, 2011, 02:25:58 AM
If Mr. Whatchamean? would like, (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20591.msg455456.html#msg455456) 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: JeffPT on March 11, 2012, 10:06:20 AM
I might be up for it if the topic is interesting. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jakec47 on March 12, 2012, 12:09:46 AM
I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: naemhni 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.)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Grimm 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).
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape 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? 

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: velkyn on March 19, 2012, 01:09:04 PM
I vote that Kcrady has the first bites with the historicity of Jesus. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady 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).
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jakec47 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape 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
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady on May 06, 2012, 05:58:03 AM
Jake, thanks for taking up the challenge.  I'm posting here so the debate thread can contain only debate posts.  As for "rules," I propose we use the format I mentioned above.  Since you're the "pro" position, you would go first with your Opening Statement, then I would go with mine.  Opening Statements would contain a basic summary of each sides' arguments.  Then you post the first rebuttal/expanded argument, then I do likewise, and we take turns.  I'm fine with either an open-ended length, or some limit like four "turns" each (or some other number).  After we've taken our maximum number of "turns" or decided we've both made our full cases, we would do our Concluding Statements, you first, then me.

A couple other rules off the top of my head: No YouTube videos, and no plagiarism of anyone else's arguments.  Citations should use proper footnoting (the "Nb" button above the smilies in the "toolbar" area) linking to any sources used, or giving a proper bibliographic citation if we cite a book.

Does that work for you?  Do you have any specific preferences for length of the debate?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jakec47 on May 07, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
That works for me and I have no preferences for the length, it will end when it ends. I will post my opening statement as soon as I can.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kaziglu bey on May 15, 2012, 08:38:31 PM
Awww. It's too bad this debate isn't on. I was rather looking forward to it. It would have been one sided slaughter of legendary proportions.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: kcrady on June 02, 2012, 02:34:15 AM
Yeah, I was looking forward to it too.  Jake said he might be able to return and do it at some point, buuuut, I won't hold my breath.  I'll just have to wait 'till somebody with Tektonics as their home page and dreams of being the next William Lane Craig shows up...  8)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Barracuda on July 01, 2012, 09:55:46 PM
If anyone wants to debate on ethics (I'm a utilitarian), I'm game. Anything under the broad category of ethics.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: none on July 01, 2012, 10:03:37 PM
I am bored.. lets go.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: none on July 01, 2012, 10:21:00 PM
If anyone wants to debate on ethics (I'm a utilitarian), I'm game. Anything under the broad category of ethics.
I am bored.... lets go.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on July 02, 2012, 06:57:03 AM
debate room prepared.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23174.msg517077.html#msg517077

Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Nam on August 15, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
I wish to debate magicmiles on his reasoning of being a member of this website when he has no inclination to actually debate in anything unless it's a topic in which he starts, and based on that: where he states he has other matters to attend to and won't be able to reply until much later yet replies in other topics either derictly or later yet ignoring his own topics that have excessive amounts of replies.

I have an idea as to why this is but I wish to debate the issue with him to find out if what I think is true.

-Nam
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Garja on August 15, 2012, 09:56:32 PM
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ansyOFGP1qjs8a7.jpg)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: HAL on August 20, 2012, 07:42:41 AM
I wish to debate magicmiles on his reasoning of being a member of this website when he has no inclination to actually debate in anything unless it's a topic in which he starts, and based on that: where he states he has other matters to attend to and won't be able to reply until much later yet replies in other topics either derictly or later yet ignoring his own topics that have excessive amounts of replies.

I have an idea as to why this is but I wish to debate the issue with him to find out if what I think is true.

-Nam

I agree with this. As I commented in the latest thread he started but just somehow ran out of time with, theists do this all too often. I wish there was some way to penalize them for wasting people's honest attempts to help them.

Bad, bad magicmiles. Shame on you.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: mhaberling on December 22, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
id like to debate bertaberts on this spag crap he keeps pestering me with... if he.can actually logically defend it fine but the more he says the less i think he knows
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on January 03, 2013, 02:44:28 PM
Is bertaberts aware of your challenge?  Is he willing to participate?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on March 11, 2013, 08:03:36 PM
I would like to challenge Wayne Harropson on the question: Are Wayne Harropson's Extraordinary Experiences From Yahweh?

There are quite a few people I would like to invite into this discussion but I've never done this before on WWGHA. So please let me know how to go about this. Thanks all. Love this forum.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on April 20, 2013, 12:13:39 PM
From the "Believing in god is not a Bad Thing" thread:

And secondly, you must be able to demonstrate that your definition of god is correct, and my definition is wrong.  And - sorry to say - to do that, I rather suspect you will need to show some evidence.....

That is a subject for another thread.

Just to clarify: are you saying that you ARE prepared to demonstrate your definition of god is correct, and provide evidence to support it, in another thread?  If so I would be more than happy to discuss it with you in the debate room: the benefit to you there is that you would only be discussing it with me, and not have to field umpteen questions from several other participants.

Shall I request that a debate be set up for us Junebug?  Or are you, perhaps, using "this is not the thread to discuss evidence" as a shield.....?

Before we continue with that discussion, I must ask what your qualifications are. Are you an expert scientist ready to conduct experiments and if so what kind of experiments are we going to do? My "report"evidence was dismissed by screwey as legal evidence not scientific, but I am more than happy to cooperate with any expert scientist with knowledge and equipment. Maybe WE could solve the mystery once and for all!

I'm not the one dictating what a person can say and what they can't. This is a major reason I wouldn't want to live in an atheist environment, no freedom of speech.

The only experiment I have ever conducted is trying the philosophies I have mentioned in my life with very successful results. It would be my pleasure to share with you Anf.

I'll take that as a "yes" then - I'll get the debate set up.  Looking forward to it.

Junebug has agreed to debate me on the evidence she has for her god.  I would appreciate it if a debate room could be set up please.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on December 02, 2013, 10:18:58 PM
OFFICIAL DEBATE CHALLENGE:

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position)
-Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate.
*Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)


Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 11:03:30 PM
You'd beat him on the OP. Plus, he'd drive it to be uncivil. We already have that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 02, 2013, 11:40:13 PM
It won't work. He knows so little about his own god that he thinks he's an expert.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Nam on December 02, 2013, 11:46:43 PM
It won't work. He knows so little about his own god that he thinks he's an expert.

Also, the guy doesn't know how to debate; he'd up preaching like the last one.

-Nam
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: skeptic54768 on December 03, 2013, 06:51:21 PM
OFFICIAL DEBATE CHALLENGE:

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position)
-Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate.
*Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)


Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: xyzzy on December 04, 2013, 12:57:37 PM
OFFICIAL DEBATE CHALLENGE:

I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?

Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:

-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position)
-Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Closing Statements

*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate.
*Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)


Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.

I can understand why someone whose intentions were to troll the forum would decline. Their outcome would more readily be obtained by, say, responding with fallacies and diversions such as red-herrings, reversing the burden of proof, demanding people defend themselves against various tropes, ignoring detailed and specific questions whilst responding with out-of-context replies to minor points, demanding replies but ignoring questions, appeals to ignorance, god of the gaps arguments, and so on. A troll, for example, would demand proof of everything leveled against him whilst providing no backup for his vague claims.

I could also understand how someone who held themselves to a different standard of proof then they required of their questioners to decline such a challenge.

Of course, one would expect someone who wasn't able to back up their claims to decline, but none of that should apply to someone who boasts of eight years of bringing people to his Christ.

Equally, a one-on-one debate ought to relieve the pressure from someone who feels that they are being overwhelmed with questions and insults. So this all ought to be a win for skeptic54768 as this debate would allow skeptic to focus on one thread and not many.

So it's puzzling to see someone saying that they are declining because having less questions is more time consuming than more questions; how having agreed-upon terms and a specific subject would result in more, not less, topics; how agreeing on standards would lead to being [falsely] accused of not responding to the agreed standard; and how median would need to REALLY want a debate that he REALLY asked for here and in other topics.

No. You've got me there.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on December 04, 2013, 04:33:16 PM

i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.

if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.

As usual, you seem to be expressing a kind of cognitive dissonance (the 'yes' but 'no' absurdity). I'm not going to sit here and hound you for a debate. Either you accept or you do not. Are you expecting some sort of 'begging'? As xyzzy has noted, you've already stated that "keeping it to the threads" is too much for you to handle. But now you're contradicting yourself by declining this debate opportunity (which is only one thread and one other person) by saying it is too time consuming. Which is it?! You already spend lots of time in the threads not answering all sorts of responses. So what gives?

This debate would be an opportunity for you to (potentially) get souls saved by presenting your case (as strong as it can be made for all to see) and focus your attention on the main subject that many here are asking you for.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 08, 2013, 09:08:28 PM
Yes, I am sure that were you to agree to a one-on-one debate, no one would complain were you to drop out of the threads you are already involved in. It's not as though you were really giving meaningful answers there anyway. This would enable you to deal with one issue at a time, with only one person asking the questions. Far less stress. Far more scope for you to give well thought-out responses without having to worry about a gazillion people ready and waiting to rip them to shreds. God could really work through you in such a setting. Even if some of your responses seemed as though they were being mercilessly shot down, don't you think that God could inspire you with some nuggets of wisdom which would speak to at least a few of the people reading? Would that really be beyond his powers to accomplish? Or do you feel that your communication skills are so poor that even God couldn't overcome them?

OK, that last bit may have been a bit of a dig, but don't you get it? I, for one, would really be interested in what a theist like you might have to say if all the distractions to real dialogue were removed. Do any of your thoughts have enough substance to withstand atheist questioning?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 26, 2013, 07:34:18 PM
I invite magicmiles to prove that objective morality exists.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers on January 25, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
I am challenging Godexists to a debate, with the following topic:  Complexity can naturally increase, given the right conditions.

I propose the framework of rules listed here (http://www.wikihow.com/Debate), specifically the formal debate rules listed first, with some modifications.

First off, I have already defined the topic.  Second, we will write our initial arguments as our opening posts in the debate thread; this also counts as presenting our argument.  Third, we will take turns supporting our own argument and refuting our opponent's.  We will each take no more than three follow-up posts to do this.  Rebuttals must be supported with positive evidence.

In order to determine who won, I would like to request five people who are willing to vote after the debate is done, who will base their votes on how well each of us presented our arguments; effectively who made the better case.  These can be any members in good standing (basically, who have more than 100 posts as of midnight GMT, 1/25/2014.).

Godexists, if you accept, please post here.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on January 26, 2014, 04:09:16 PM
I second Jaimes debate challenge and volunteer to be a voter ;)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: wheels5894 on January 26, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
I second Jaimes debate challenge and volunteer to be a voter ;)

count me in too!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers on January 26, 2014, 04:19:53 PM
Unfortunately, Godexists declined via PM, and apparently decided not to post about it here like I had asked him to do.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: wheels5894 on January 26, 2014, 04:22:18 PM
Unfortunately, Godexists declined via PM, and apparently decided not to post about it here like I had asked him to do.

Probably got cold feet when he saw the task ahead!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Nam on January 26, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
Unfortunately, Godexists declined via PM, and apparently decided not to post about it here like I had asked him to do.

He's a plagiarising coward, why would he? Also, why would you want to debate someone who not only plagiarizes but always links most of his answers? This guy rarely says anything himself. You wouldn't be debating him but the myriad of websites he'd link or plagiarize from.

-Nam
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers on January 27, 2014, 09:28:10 AM
Thus the rules I set up.  He wouldn't have been able to do that without breaking the rules, and if he had broken the rules too many times he would have lost the debate by default, if only because everyone else would have recognized that he didn't have an actual argument.  It would have required him to be intellectually honest, and he chose not participating because he recognized it, I think.  Which doesn't mean he didn't expose himself as a conniving coward who ran from a challenge.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on January 27, 2014, 11:22:34 AM
Thus the rules I set up.  He wouldn't have been able to do that without breaking the rules, and if he had broken the rules too many times he would have lost the debate by default, if only because everyone else would have recognized that he didn't have an actual argument.  It would have required him to be intellectually honest, and he chose not participating because he recognized it, I think.  Which doesn't mean he didn't expose himself as a conniving coward who ran from a challenge.

When Christians can't be intellectually honest (b/c they know doing so would mean having to abandon their faith) they run away or press on with more dishonesty!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Habenae Est Dominatus on April 30, 2014, 10:49:19 AM
I challenge a group spokesperson to a formal debate. Since Hatter23's sniping is the reason for this, I would prefer it be him. If not, then whoever wishes to step to the plate. I don't want to deal with whipsawing I've been getting so I am specific in the term spokesperson. I will not be reading the commentary thread.

As the topic says:  Belief in authority is a religion.

To prove this assertion, I need only expose that the belief continues to exist after authority is shown to be non-existent (Illegitimate authority is not authority).

The following points will be introduced to the formal debate by myself, one at a time.

101. Admit or Deny that you were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Admit or Deny that therefore, you DO NOT have authority to command me by your mere birth.

103. Admit or Deny that if this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.

108. Admit or Deny that if no one has authority to command me, then no one has the authority to choose someone to have authority to command me.

109. Admit or Deny thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have the authority to command me, they do not have the authority to give that politician the authority to command me.

110. Admit or Deny that therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the authority to command me.

111. Admit or Deny that if the politician does not have authority to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on April 30, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
104 has already been denied by everyone you're addressing.

Rather than repeat yourself blindly, why don't you honestly re-assess your reasoning?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: magicmiles on April 30, 2014, 04:45:13 PM
I invite magicmiles to prove that objective morality exists.

I just saw this. I'll have to decline sorry. I'd be biting off more than I can chew (in terms of time commitment)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers on April 30, 2014, 07:08:09 PM
Indeed.  HED, you've built your argument on the premise that one must have a higher birth rank in order to have authority over another.  However, this is clearly not the only way to gain rank, or for that matter to gain authority.  The military uses ranks to delineate authority which are clearly not based on birth, for example.  That's why #104 fails - because you have not established that others cannot have a higher rank than you, or that they cannot derive authority from some other source besides rank.  You've only established that nobody has a higher birth rank than you.  But even if you had established that nobody had a higher rank than you, period, you still would not have established that nobody had authority over you.

Can you acknowledge that your logic is flawed, or at least incomplete?  If not, there's no point in having a debate with you.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on May 07, 2014, 12:23:25 PM
Defiance challenged me to defend the position that it is perfectly logical for heaven, hell, and god to exist.
Could we create a discussion about that?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on May 07, 2014, 01:11:02 PM
Defiance challenged me to defend the position that it is perfectly logical for heaven, hell, and god to exist.
Could we create a discussion about that?

yep. 
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All on May 11, 2014, 12:14:20 PM
I hereby challenge any and all theists (though only one should accept, as I will not debate all of them at once) to present a single, rational, contradiction and fallacy-free argument for the existence of their chosen deity. No plagiarizing, obviously.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on May 11, 2014, 12:26:12 PM
I accept the challenge :)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 11, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
I accept the challenge :)

Before you do, Luk, could you please answer my last post on the "cloak and dagger" thread? Thanks.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All on May 11, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
I accept the challenge :)

Well now, isn't this a surprise? I didn't expect any theist to actually accept. Let's set the rules by PM, then talk to one of the admins so they can open up a thread for us.
EDIT: I do want to note, though, that, even if you manage to do what I challenged you to, it doesn't prove a deity. It just proves one is not impossible (which is not the same as "likely").
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on May 15, 2014, 05:32:52 PM
I challenge junebug72 to demonstrate that Catholicism will destroy God.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Nam on May 15, 2014, 05:41:17 PM
I'll take her off my ignore just to read that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on May 17, 2014, 06:06:51 PM
I challenge Lukvance to demonstrate the independent ontological existence of the alleged deity "Yahweh".

The debate heading can be: Does Yahweh Exist?

FORMAT (somewhat open):

1. Opening statements and/or informal questioning (affirmative starts)
2. Rebuttal rounds
3. Closings

-Moderators will decide when each round is finished as well as any other deemed necessary perimeters.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on May 17, 2014, 06:31:57 PM
Sorry median, I already demonstrated the existence of God. Yahweh is just one of his synonyms.
Maybe a more precise subject that you want us to debate on?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on May 17, 2014, 06:35:02 PM
Sorry median, I already demonstrated the existence of God. Yahweh is just one of his synonyms.
Maybe a more precise subject that you want us to debate on?

No, you didn't demonstrate the actual existence of a God. You just claimed it, but I'm not surprised at your reaction here since it's evidently clear that you can't meet the challenge.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on May 17, 2014, 06:50:00 PM
Oh? But the 2 debates are almost close. Wait a bit and we'll see if I proved it or not.
I didn't want to start a third debate on the exact same subject. But if you really want to I am available.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on July 15, 2014, 03:44:04 PM
So, who's up next for a debate? :) I think I discouraged those I was debating with.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on July 16, 2014, 03:45:31 AM
So, who's up next for a debate? :) I think I discouraged those I was debating with.

I havent done one for while, if you want a partner.  Not sure what subject we'd have though.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on July 16, 2014, 12:24:56 PM
Hmm What about that one I'm having a good time with some people on Google+ community with it : "How would God want us to respond to aggression and terrorism?" Or another subject that is close to my heart :"How would you describe God and why?"
I understand that these are more ideas than a debate subject. I suppose that there is a way to formulate them so it fits the debate format.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on July 17, 2014, 03:52:35 AM
Hmm What about that one I'm having a good time with some people on Google+ community with it : "How would God want us to respond to aggression and terrorism?" Or another subject that is close to my heart :"How would you describe God and why?"
I understand that these are more ideas than a debate subject. I suppose that there is a way to formulate them so it fits the debate format.

Hum - yes, I don't see either of them being "debates" with theist/atheist - though I could see the first at least being interesting between two theists with different views.  I'll think on.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: junebug72 on July 17, 2014, 05:35:33 AM
So, who's up next for a debate? :) I think I discouraged those I was debating with.

Buddy you haven't discouraged me.  If you had it's not something I would brag about.  If you knew Jesus you would know he likes humility.

If you made me feel anything it was sadness.  Sad that an intelligent young man can not see, hear or speak the truth.

The only thing discouraging about you is your own ego.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on July 17, 2014, 07:51:02 PM
Hum - yes, I don't see either of them being "debates" with theist/atheist - though I could see the first at least being interesting between two theists with different views.  I'll think on.
True, true. Is there something that you have trouble understanding about theists? I mean I understand Atheists I just don't think they have the correct answer to life.
There was this debate on youtube long ago. Maybe It could be a good subject. Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: median on July 18, 2014, 01:52:39 AM
Hum - yes, I don't see either of them being "debates" with theist/atheist - though I could see the first at least being interesting between two theists with different views.  I'll think on.
True, true. Is there something that you have trouble understanding about theists? I mean I understand Atheists I just don't think they have the correct answer to life.
There was this debate on youtube long ago. Maybe It could be a good subject. Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

No, you do not understand atheists at all, and this statement demonstrates it. B/c if you did you would know that atheism has NOTHING to do with "the correct answer to life". Atheism makes no positive claims. It is not a "worldview". It is not a positive position on the question and it has no beliefs or dogmas. So you are severely misguided as to who were are.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on July 18, 2014, 02:42:17 AM
Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

Sounds potentially interesting.  Would you be prepared to argue the "no" position?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on July 19, 2014, 04:20:02 PM
Of course I would argue that the Catholic church IS a force for good in the world.
And Median. I don't find your criticism very constructive do you have a subject in mind that would please you?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on July 20, 2014, 05:46:01 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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) :)
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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"?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance 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.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: screwtape on July 23, 2014, 12:55:23 PM
done
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Lukvance on July 23, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
done
Sorry, could I have the link?
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Azdgari on July 24, 2014, 08:44:44 AM
Sorry, could I have the link?
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27129.0.html

Top of the page, Debate room.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All on May 07, 2015, 11:53:07 AM
I hereby challenge any christian to a debate on every contradiction in the Bible I can find[1], starting with Genesis. First, they will establish YHWH's psychological characteristics (good/evil, control freak/liberal, and so on), what it wants for humanity, and what its powers and limitations are, so we have something to go on for some potential contradictions.
 1. So it won't take the rest of your lives.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Defiance on May 17, 2015, 08:19:53 PM
Hmm.

I set a "Challenge to any theist prove existence of god", using proper methods to eliminate error as put forth by the Scientific Method. There will be no special pleading for gods. Neither will there be vague arguments that could fit for any other imaginary thing.

Read the OP and participate on the thread or in a one-on-one.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26994.0.html
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on September 07, 2017, 02:40:22 AM
Debate Proposal - Death Over Life and Anfauglir

"Pagan Deities - more than the sum of their parts?"

We are agreed on the general thrust of the debate - to try to understand what a Pagan Deity is (and is not), but the title still needs agreement!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: jaimehlers on September 07, 2017, 09:28:42 AM
I will be happy to moderate for the proposed debate between Anfauglir and Death over Life.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Death over Life on September 07, 2017, 01:17:37 PM
It is settled then.

I will debate Anfauglir on "Pagan Deities - more than the sum of their parts?" with jaimehlers as the moderator for this debate.

If there is any part of either party that finds a statement confusing or needs elaborating, I also don't have a problem with the moderator coming in and trying to help sort out the statements or clarifications in question before continuing with the debate.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on September 08, 2017, 04:09:45 AM
The title is less important than the conversation.  I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not even looking for a "debate" as such, more an ability to understand what a pagan deity actually IS in Death over Life's view.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Death over Life on September 08, 2017, 10:19:15 AM
The title is less important than the conversation.  I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not even looking for a "debate" as such, more an ability to understand what a pagan deity actually IS in Death over Life's view.

I am fine with this. That being said, when you see what a Pagan Deity actually is, it will end up sparking an actual debate. I already know it's going to happen. I am ready.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: Anfauglir on September 11, 2017, 02:08:51 AM
Okey-dokey - I've opened a thread.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All on October 27, 2017, 08:03:07 AM
I hereby challenge any and all theists to provide me with a single argument for the existence of deities that has never been debunked before.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: wheels5894 on October 27, 2017, 10:08:39 AM
I hereby challenge any and all theists to provide me with a single argument for the existence of deities that has never been debunked before.


Expect a long wait then!
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: One Above All on October 27, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
I hereby challenge any and all theists to provide me with a single argument for the existence of deities that has never been debunked before.

Expect a long wait then!

I have all of eternity.
Title: Re: Debate Challenges
Post by: wheels5894 on October 27, 2017, 02:43:26 PM
I hereby challenge any and all theists to provide me with a single argument for the existence of deities that has never been debunked before.

Expect a long wait then!

I have all of eternity.


I realise that you are eternal but even then, it could take a long time...... unless we just show you exist of course!