I Challenge You To a Debate

[Mr.Obvious]

How about this rule.
You can't move forward with the argument unless you have addressed all the points the other person raised, in a concise, explicit, clear and conclusive manner.

And on the other hand, do not be insincere and raise a point just to score a "gotcha" point. The contentions must be legit.

Here's another rule. No dishonest debate tactics, no engaging in semantics, no clever attempts to misrepresent and shift the burden of proof.

No logical fallacies, no assertions without at least an explanation as to why to back them up and/or external references.

The intros should also clearly establish each person's views: are you a skeptic, atheist, materialist, theist, etc. to rule out the possibility of talking past each other.

Make NO statements about the other person's positions without explicitly asking them first where they stand. For example, no "you're a materialist" or "you're a nihilist"!


I would be willing and more than happy to moderate and interject when necessary. I'm no stranger to objectivity. In fact my profession requires it.

I think a limit on pages makes sense, but this limit may be extended at the discretion of the moderator if a good reason is provided and inquiry is necessary for further clarification.

Agreed?

I can get down with that.

[Casparov]

I can get down with that.

I can agree with these as well.

Shol'va you are welcome to moderate. I guess we can agree on an 11 page limit and if Shol'va decides it should be extended he can make that decision.

Another rule I thought of should be no videos or copy and pasted articles.

[Solitary]

How about no Slick Maneuvers allowed as a rule? Solitary

[Shol'va]

I think it goes without saying, no insults either or passive aggressiveness. Let's stay objective.
Casparov, go ahead and initiate the thread and we'll see you there!

[Casparov]

I think it goes without saying, no insults either or passive aggressiveness. Let's stay objective.
Casparov, go ahead and initiate the thread and we'll see you there!

One debate thread coming your way. Play ball! 

[Solitary]

This should be fun! OK all you rationalist and logic knowers---let's see how many fallacies we can count in the debate? Solitary

[Mr.Obvious]

Another rule I thought of should be no videos or copy and pasted articles.

One last question; that counts for 'links to articles' as well, right? Not just copies of abstracts or paragraphs?

[Shol'va]

References are fine, as are short abstracts. If we start quoting lengthy articles, the thread is going to be hard to follow.
The expectation is that each individual will follow the reference and read the article themselves.

[Jason78]

It is either the case that reality exists in such a way that god exists, or reality exists in such a way that no god exists. Both of these propositions bear the full weight of the burden of proof because both make a positive claim about the nature of reality.

Oh dear...

[josephpalazzo]

It is either the case that reality exists in such a way that GHOSTS exist, or reality exists in such a way that no GHOST exists. Both of these propositions bear the full weight of the burden of proof because both make a positive claim about the nature of reality.

[Solitary]

Right off the bat a Non Sequitur and false dichotomy with faulty logic from Caspar the master of Slick Maneuvers.  Solitary

Round 1: C Zero, S One.

[Shol'va]

I have also noted other issues but for now I'm going to leave it to Mr Obvious to address.
I did bring that issue to the attention because it is a fundamental one, not to mention pretty serious.

[stromboli]

I've seen a few philosophical debates, and I've never seen one where anyone admitted losing or changed their position. This won't be any different.

[Casparov]

I have also noted other issues but for now I'm going to leave it to Mr Obvious to address.
I did bring that issue to the attention because it is a fundamental one, not to mention pretty serious.

Just to clarify: It is still Mr. Obvious's turn and I am to address your concerns when it's my turn again. Is this correct?

[Shol'va]

I do not wish to risk either derailing the discussion or making it seem like I am overbearing, so if you feel that can be addressed perhaps as a side-note within the same response to Mr Obvious, that would be OK. As long as you gents are on the same page we are OK, I want to make sure you don't talk past each other based on a fundamental misunderstanding of terms.