The Debates Forum (discussion): Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » The Debates Forum (discussion) » The Debates Forum (discussion)

The Debates Forum (discussion)

Page: 1 2

The Debates Forum (discussion)

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/13/04 - 04:08 PM:	#1
Welcome, everyone, to the new Debates and Debates Discussion forums. Paul has chosen me to moderate this forum. Its design if of my making and with his approval. If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, feel free do PM me or post it below. I am hopeful that this forum will generate much interest, and will be a positive thing on the Philosophy Forums. Please, before doing anything else, read the Debates Forum Parameters. The first debates should be going soon. Interlocutor Edited by dreamweaver on 05/19/05 - 02:58 PM. Reason: fixed link

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/13/04 - 06:35 PM:	#2
Interlocutor: I don't understand what you mean by the burden of proof being the onus of both participants. Do you not think that this will cause arguments as to the person who should prove his/her statements? I think that perhaps you should, after making clear that both debaters must prove their statements (I think that's what you meant) say that the burden of proof lies with he who claims the positive (The man who says "God exists," with an intention to make another believe that He exists must prove it rather than the man who says, "God does not exist.") If you have reason not to include this rule, please ignore me.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 04/13/04 - 06:44 PM:	#3
The burden of proof does not lie with only one person... both people must defend their point. Placing the burden of proof on the one who says god exists is, in my opinion, just a pseudophilosophical attempt to avoid the obligation to argue for your own position. It's not valid to say that X doesn't exist until you prove it does, as a general rule. If I say that Earth exists, that does not mean the Earth doesn't exist until I prove it. Anyhow we've got a long thread on that subject: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php... (As Gassendi points out, yes, the burden of higher evidence lies with the person making the more absurd claim.)
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/13/04 - 06:51 PM:	#4
Okay, thank you Paul. I knew it was a guideline, and I know that both people must defend their claim (that's the point of a debate forum, right?) but I was only asking so that we could avoid people saying, "Well he doesn't have any proof God DOESN'T exist so I win." Even though I doubt that will happen, since people must ask to debate in this forum. I think Gassendi's way is a better way.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 04/13/04 - 06:55 PM:	#5
Well, I don't believe there's such a thing as proof in these debates. Burden of evidence and argument might be better wording. I assume that's what Interlocutor means by it anyhow.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/13/04 - 07:47 PM:	#6
Perhaps "burden of proof" is somewhat misleading. It is, as Paul suggests, more a matter of evidence and argument. I think saying that the onus is on all participants is an attempt to prevent exactly what you're concerned about, GreenFleshyFlower.

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 04/13/04 - 09:07 PM:	#7
Seems pretty thorough - hats off to you Interlocutor. I look forward to the official opening debate! f
_____________________ The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/13/04 - 10:08 PM:	#8
Thanks. I'm sure the forum will have some growing pains, but I am hopeful that it will do well.

ashingular
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2003
Location: California
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 333

Posted 04/14/04 - 12:48 AM:	#9
Three cheers for the new forums! Interlocutor, great job on outlining the specifics here - looks like every angle has been covered. Looking forward to the first round of debates.
_____________________ *A Mind Forever Voyaging Through The Strange Seas Of Thought, Alone*

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/14/04 - 08:35 AM:	#10
Same here. I'll be glad to read some debates not interspersed with Insane Clown Posse references or crazy drug-addled pseudophilosophies.

flasher1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 02, 2003
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/14/04 - 09:18 AM:	#11
Great idea. Just wanted to say I'll be reading and hope for some good debate.

Liberepublicat
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Location: Kansas
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 1261

Posted 04/14/04 - 10:03 AM:	#12
Mods may have already considered this, but in case they haven't... just a thought about potential topics: If a topic is chosen that already has polarized adherents on both sides, the debate will likely be fairly unproductive and indecisive. When people already firmly believe in one side of an argument, they tend to hear only what they want to hear (valid evidence for their belief) from the advocate of their position, and what they expect to hear (invailid support for any other belief) from the opposition.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/14/04 - 10:49 AM:	#13
I think that's pretty much the case with most discussion, whether it is formal debate or office politics or whatever. I don't expect anyone to be really enlightened by all this. If they are, that's fantastic. But it isn't up to the moderators to make sure they are. The debates are just a new and potentially interesting format for relevant philosophical and social issues. The job of a debater is to bring their opponents over to their side. If they're good, they'll win some people over. Maybe that will happen. Otherwise, we'll just have a bit of fun.

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/14/04 - 02:13 PM:	#14
I think we ought to invite Libertarian back for a formal debate on the existence of God or the usefulness of religion. That would be interesting, to say the least.

BMW-Guy
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 19, 2003
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 1602

Posted 04/14/04 - 02:37 PM:	#15
Really, I love to have Mr. Libertarian back, but I think Mr. Interlocuter is well-suited for this job (Moderator of the Debate Forum). Perhaps they need two moderators.

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1755

Posted 04/14/04 - 03:03 PM:	#16
GreenFleshyFlower wrote: I think we ought to invite Libertarian back for a formal debate on the existence of God or the usefulness of religion. That would be interesting, to say the least. I'll tear him to figurative little pieces! I would positively love to do existence of god / usefulness of religion.
_____________________ Make your own rules.

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/14/04 - 03:11 PM:	#17
BMW-Guy wrote: Really, I love to have Mr. Libertarian back, but I think Mr. Interlocuter is well-suited for this job (Moderator of the Debate Forum). Perhaps they need two moderators. I wasn't saying at all that we need another moderator, I meant that it would be interesting to see his debate for the existence of God, since he's one of the only people I've seen on the forums who was able to do that without resorting to name-calling. Well, he did a bit of name-calling, but he was still patient, even if his precious modal ontological argument got torn apart.

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 04/14/04 - 06:44 PM:	#18
You know, I just noticed something. As I skim through threads, I (for the most part) only read the posts made by the main arguer for what I perceive to be the more absurd claim and the responses to his posts by the most well-spoken (written?) poster. So I've been doing what this debate forum is for all along; it's just been a little harder. I'm very glad this was created.

armchairphilosopher
Intuitive Ignoramus

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2003
Location: Belfast
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 823

Posted 04/15/04 - 01:38 PM:	#19
So, you're attempting to turn Mass-Debating into a more one on one experience, and people get to observe and post comments? I couldn't resist. I'll get my coat.
_____________________ Where there is deprivation, there will be people who blame the deprived for their own circumstances, especially where there is a history of oppression that the current descendents of the oppressors do not want to face up to. Ever heard of 'White man's guilt'? Humans also tend towards that which is most convenient.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/18/04 - 08:38 AM:	#20
Concerning Debate 1, where does the burden of proof stand? ashingular appears to have set out to refute Random's argument rather than argue his side. It has only just begun and so I may be judging too quickly, but as with most things, time will tell.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/18/04 - 09:49 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
Curator of the Hedge Lab

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 1467

Posted 04/20/04 - 02:52 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.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/20/04 - 09:09 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 - 10:26 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 - 01:25 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).

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.