Except that some of us are not here to debate, but rather to
discuss.
A discussion needs an honest exchange of information with each side asking the other honest sincere questions about their position and claims, including the basis of how they had arrived at their position and claims and their lines of reasoning.
And receiving honest answers to those questions. Including the type of questions where you ask "Here is what I understand your position/claim to be. Is that correct?" -- IOW, requests for clarification which should be honored.
Of course, complete honesty is an ideal that is too rarely realized with many questions ending up being extra probing and many answers being more guarded and even bordering on evasive, but
at a minimum discussion does require a
conversation, an
exchange of ideas and information, and a goal of attaining clarification, knowledge, and understanding.
Debate is a different matter altogether. A debate is the opposite of a discussion. In a debate the goal is to
win by whatever means. In formal settings (eg, debate classes/clubs, formal debate competitions, courtrooms), there are academic and ethical standards that debaters must adhere to. However, in informal settings (eg, creationist debates, forum trolling) anything goes and there is no limit to the dishonest tricks, lies, and deceptions that will be used.
In the decades that I've been involved in this issue, I can only think of one single YEC-type creationist that I encountered who was honest and willing to engage in discussion -- that was on CompuServe in 1993-94 and within a year his honest approach led him to abandon creationism; his story, which I have quoted from a few timeshere , is archived at
Did We Evolve?.
The creationists that we keep getting here are the same as the ones that I have been encountering for decades. Evasive, deceptive, arrogant, clueless about the subject matter and even about their own claims, willing to lie about everything and anything, intent on preventing any discussion from occurring. Basically, little more than trolls. Prime examples are candle2 and now cristian_gavrilescu, both nothing but trolls, though the latter appears to not be human but rather a trolling program similar to
ELIZA as he repeatedly shoots his mouth off from the hip without any mental process involved with almost immediate turn-around.
Richard L. Wang has not been much better, though not as overtly troll-like. While he should be capable of discussion, he has so far sought to prevent discussion. Which is too bad, because I had hoped that we could finally have a creationist we could discuss things with. Instead, he only wants a
debate, the opposite of a discussion, and he wants to push his religious agenda and cram it down our throats no matter what.