The Debates Forum (discussion): Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2 3 4

The Debates Forum (discussion)

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/18/04 - 08:49 AM:	#21
He does at least start out defining his position and setting up what he will argue, as per the rules. After that, he's welcome to treat the debate however he wishes. I expect that the second post will generally contain some arguments against what came before it. That is, unless the debate style is concurrent.

Nihilistic Locomotive
Coprophagic coprophobic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 27, 2003

Total Topics: 61
Total Posts: 1692

Posted 04/20/04 - 01:52 AM:	#22
Debate 2's premise is a bit ridiculous and could be narrowed or enlarged to discuss the primary significance of God in a relevant context, ie. the occurance of the atheist as regards the theist. Let those who have a genuine proposition born out of conviction argue; also make them clear in meaning as to accord with others. Otherwise what is evidence but mutual appropriations between debaters far removed. Also the strain on evidence when it points toward a subject that indicates a supreme form of evidence, as implemented by the assumptions that God is evidence. Narrow the premise until we are discussing the evidence of apples. The impulse to assume supreme form as granted is not in the spirit of logic or philosophy, at least in what I sense. The entire approach seems a bit off.
Pseudophilosophy is a blessed art not to be taken seriously but to be enjoyed deeply.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/20/04 - 08:09 AM:	#23
Then suggest a better premise and maybe someone will debate that in the future.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/21/04 - 09:26 AM:	#24
I have added a rule clarification (a new rule, really): 14. When referencing a source, any point made by that source which is referenced must be at least summarized. In an argument about the existence of God, for example, if you’re speaking about sufficient causality, you may not say: “Well, Aristotle proves the existence of a first cause, so therefore we can dispense with this part of the argument as having been reasonably demonstrated.” In essence, if you have a point to make, you must make it yourself. I had thought this was sufficiently covered by the rule above it, but not quite.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/21/04 - 12:25 PM:	#25
Rule 7: Unless otherwise approved, the first post of each participant must be written out and submitted to the moderator in charge of the debate forum before the debate begins. Upon receiving both opening posts, the moderator will post each at the same time. The debate may then begin with each participant taking turns (unless otherwise approved).

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 04/23/04 - 06:33 PM:	#26
Dam this doesn't seem to be going very well. What happened to all the people who were for this in the first place? Are they all busy with school too or did they just lie in the feedback forum? Hopefully things will pick up soon...

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12175

Posted 04/23/04 - 06:55 PM:	#27
Good idea with rule 7... should prevent people from taking purely defensive positions.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/23/04 - 08:05 PM:	#28
Thanks. Also though, to my mind there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to going first or second. If you go first the only solid advantage is to predict what your opponent is going to say and tell your audience to be prepared for it, and how fallacious their arguments are going to be...adds a touch of rhetoric to the reason. Of course the person who goes second gets the final word. But Rule 7 evens the playing field a bit. Maybe I should have debaters send me their final posts too, to be posted at the same time? I know there are already an awful lot of rules, but they're there for good reason. I wouldn't want to add more complications without sufficient purpose.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/23/04 - 08:11 PM:	#29
Dam this doesn't seem to be going very well. What happened to all the people who were for this in the first place? Are they all busy with school too or did they just lie in the feedback forum? Hopefully things will pick up soon... This is exam time for a lot of people. I'm hopeful that the debates will pick up when people have nothing better to do but run around and play in the sun and rest their minds from the trials of another hard year. Most of the people who favored the creation of the debate thread haven't yet asked to debate. But the forum has only been around for a week or so. It's not in danger of collapsing just yet.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/15/04 - 02:37 PM:	#30
From here on out, the following rule will apply to all debates: Rule 8: Breaking up your opponent's post in the fashion of a typical post is not permitted. All quotations of your opponent must be handled in the same manner as they would in a formal essay. Use of the "quote" tags, or any other method of breaking up a post, is not permitted.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.