|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We could debate about which topic to debate about ...
Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We could debate about which topic to debate about ... No we couldn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This is the sort of organised format I guess I was thinking of: Link
Link writes: Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This House", for example, "This House would establish a world government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences. Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain". Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. Something like "The house would establish a world government" is broad enough to be potentially feasible. Maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Hmmm...
I will take jar, Ringo, and Modulous for my team.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Good choices IMHO (when jar can be arsed - which is less and less often these days).
But would you care to elaborate on your choices? Why those and not others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: Good choices IMHO (when jar can be arsed - which is less and less often these days). But would you care to elaborate on your choices? Why those and not others? jar has encouraged me to ask questions and is a stickler at framing issues. His only drawback is that he often stalls discussions by insisting on redefining terms at the expense of allowing a topic originator to frame their own issue. Ringo is flat out humorous. He is always willing to offer an insightful alternative. Modulous is, as you say, intelligent and seems well balanced between faith and reason. Even though a self proclaimed atheist, Mod tolerates the faith of others, as long as they themselves are tolerable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well I can't argue with any of that except to say that I hope jar decides to take part less superficially than he has done recently at some point in the near future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Straggler writes: Well I can't argue with any of that except to say that I hope jar decides to take part less superficially than he has done recently at some point in the near future. I have to say that I've become more, uh, understanding of the approach of Jar and Dr Adequte and, for those who remember him, Scott Page. After a couple decades of trying to compose well-supported and evidenced arguments full of explanation, and of patiently repeating them whenever appropriate, I now feel like there are some creationists where this effort is wasted. For those who have debated Mike the Wiz and know how he seems to go through these manic periods every so often where you just can't have a normal discussion with him, debating some creationists is like that, and when they're in this state there's just no point in trying to engage them in rational discussion. So you can just ignore them, or you can taunt them, or, as in Scott Page's case, you can rage at them. But discussing with them when they're in that state is just a waste of time. They're all full of the holy spirit and of indignation at what they feel is atheistic science, and there's just no talking to them. The current crop of creationists are mostly of this type. We used to get a mix where for every Peter Borger there would be a Tranquility Base, for every Randman a TrueCreation, but not these days. Creationist organizations used to exert much energy promoting creationism as science to the public, especially the evangelical Christian public, and this resulted in many creationists coming here fully charged with detailed arguments garnered from ICR or CRS or DI, but it also caused too many losing court cases, so now this effort is going into more grass roots efforts that more subtly try to influence public education. This has brought about the situation we have here today, where the arrival of an informed creationist who is familiar with the topic and with the arguments from his side is a rare event. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
More like the creationist dream team from hell. Let's allow 5 debaters, and then we could throw Barbara in there. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Straggler writes: Well I can't argue with any of that except to say that I hope jar decides to take part less superficially than he has done recently at some point in the near future. I have to say that I've become more, uh, understanding of the approach of Jar and Dr Adequte and, for those who remember him, Scott Page. After a couple decades of trying to compose well-supported and evidenced arguments full of explanation, and of patiently repeating them whenever appropriate, I now feel like there are some creationists where this effort is wasted. For those who have debated Mike the Wiz and know how he seems to go through these manic periods every so often where you just can't have a normal discussion with him, debating some creationists is like that, and when they're in this state there's just no point in trying to engage them in rational discussion. So you can just ignore them, or you can taunt them, or, as in Scott Page's case, you can rage at them. But discussing with them when they're in that state is just a waste of time. They're all full of the holy spirit and of indignation at what they feel is atheistic science, and there's just no talking to them. The current crop of creationists are mostly of this type. We used to get a mix where for every Peter Borger there would be a Tranquility Base, for every Randman a TrueCreation, but not these days. Creationist organizations used to exert much energy promoting creationism as science to the public, especially the evangelical Christian public, and this resulted in many creationists coming here fully charged with detailed arguments garnered from ICR or CRS or DI, but it also caused too many losing court cases, so now this effort is going into more grass roots efforts that more subtly try to influence public education. This has brought about the situation we have here today, where the arrival of an informed creationist who is familiar with the topic and with the arguments from his side is a rare event. --Percy Mmm, btw, "Adequte" should be "Adequate." Now we're even. OK? How many lively and thought provoking debates have you gotten from True Creation and Tranquility Base types? Are you sure that you want a congenial and tranquil little conventionalist discussion board? How many EvC members would have ever had an awareness of the Biblical prophecies relative to the latter days, alternative views concerning the emerging New World Order, Middle East current events, acclaimed Exodus evidence and alternative views concerning many topics which would never have been on the table if left up to Tranquil Base and True Creation types? If you want a lively, provocative and interesting board, shouldn't you expect incompatible alternative methods, models and MO's among Members? How boring EvC town would be without incompatible Dream Teams to debate alternative mindsets. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Well, it's a tough call. I cannot think of many really good debaters here with whom I've many disagreements. I'd end up having to settle with folk who mostly agree with me...
Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The current crop of creationists are mostly of this type. We used to get a mix where for every Peter Borger there would be a Tranquility Base, for every Randman a TrueCreation, but not these days. Some of them seem quite reasonable: for example goldrush, Aaron, slevesque, and sac.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How many EvC members would have ever had an awareness of the Biblical prophecies relative to the latter days, alternative views concerning the emerging New World Order, Middle East current events, acclaimed Exodus evidence and alternative views concerning many topics which would never have been on the table if left up to Tranquil Base and True Creation types? Well, if we'd left it up to you we wouldn't have heard equally nonsensical statements about the great Pyramid and the "pillars of Enoch". For that we needed Cold Foreign Object. Every religious loon has their own brand of crazy, there's nothing special about yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
I think the causality is much more local then any grand trend in the creationist movement. I think it simply is that many creationist that come along are quickly gone because many posters here come to the table with a boatload of preconcieved notions about them.
I mean, just look at my own first thread (salt in oceans - where is the thread number, I can't find it to create a link?) here and the very first reply I got from Dr.A. Because those creationist who do want to get rational discussions going won't be encouraged to stay by snarky remarks etc., and so you are left with those who just like to pick a fight on the internet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024