|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great Debaters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This would be a good read since they are both such master debaters and cunning linguists. Just so you know it didn't go wasted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: Oni and Buz on cosmology - Coz it'd be funny, good natured and potentially informative in a head banging kinda way. Buz banned from science, period, including ID stuff. True creationist debate on science a no-no here at EvC (Evolution vs Creation. ) Pseudo-creationist stuff ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Buz banned from science, period, including ID stuff. True creationist debate on science a no-no here at EvC (Evolution vs Creation. ) Pseudo-creationist stuff ok. Buz, the reason for this is that for you, scripture et al. is the highest form of knowledge. That is not the case in science. Science demands real evidence, and most importantly, evidence that can be tested by others. (See tagline...) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: That said, I vote for Mod and somebody since I've never had opportunity for a Great Debate. That doesn't seem right! Maybe we can rectify it. To put you on the spot (ignore if you like) - Who would you like to Great Debate and on what topic?
Mod writes: I concur I'd like to see Dr A and RAZD. Potentially a classic. The escalating levels of sarcasm alone would be worth the entry fee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: Buzsaw writes: Buz banned from science, period, including ID stuff. True creationist debate on science a no-no here at EvC (Evolution vs Creation. ) Pseudo-creationist stuff ok. Buz, the reason for this is that for you, scripture et al. is the highest form of knowledge. That is not the case in science. Science demands real evidence, and most importantly, evidence that can be tested by others. Coyote, I've come to Bolderdash's insinuation that the reason is that sometimes the quickest and easiest way for the powers that be here at EvC town to silence the most effective great debaters of the creationist constituency has been to either stalk, harass and ban them from where they do the most damage to the majority secularist constituency or just flat out permanently ban them. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes: Buzsaw writes: Buz banned from science, period, including ID stuff. True creationist debate on science a no-no here at EvC (Evolution vs Creation. ) Pseudo-creationist stuff ok. Buz, the reason for this is that for you, scripture et al. is the highest form of knowledge. That is not the case in science. Science demands real evidence, and most importantly, evidence that can be tested by others. Coyote, I've come to Bolderdash's insinuation that the reason is that sometimes the quickest and easiest way for the powers that be here at EvC town to silence the most effective great debaters of the creationist constituency has been to either stalk, harass and ban them from where they do the most damage to the majority secularist constituency or just flat out permanently ban them. When you do religious apologetics you can use whatever methods and evidence they allow. It is best not to confuse the two. Belief does not constitute scientific evidence. (Hey, that would be a good tagline!). One of the main problems in the science forums is creationists who substitute belief (and use pseudo science to support it) for real science. When the problems are explained, with supporting evidence, said creationists tend to fall back on belief and ignore the empirical evidence. This leads to a serious disconnect. You can preach and proselytize all you want in the religious forums, but you have to realize that neither constitutes scientific evidence. When you or other creationists debate science you really do have to follow the rules of science, and to bring empirical evidence. Otherwise you end up as religion has, with some 40,000 different worldwide religions and close to that many sects, branches, and subdivisions of Christianity alone. The reason for that is religions rely on belief, revelation, scripture and individual interpretation rather than empirical evidence and established rules for deciding which, of various competing claims, is likely to be wrong. Or, as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning." Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Perhaps it might also be interesting to see our esteemed members take a totally opposite view and debate that view against a similarily opposite view..
For example, let's say Straggler takes the YEC Creationist ID viewpoint and Buzsaw takes the Evolutionary/ordinary random mutation viewpoint. I wouldn't expect this sort of an experiment to last very long, but there might be an entertaining exchange for those of us watching from the peanut gallery. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Oni and Buz on cosmology - Coz it'd be funny, good natured and potentially informative in a head banging kinda way. Can you say "1000 posts and nothing accomplished"...? Lol
Mod and Percy debate anything that they can fnd to fundamentally disagree upon - Intellectual curiosity. I'd rather watch two old ladies argue a over game of Bridge! No offense to either dude but, we need some action...some fire in a great debate. It's no fun if the debate ends in a handshake and a mutual respect of one another. Gross.
Here are my votes: quote: - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oni writes: Can you say "1000 posts and nothing accomplished"...? Lol Sounds like a summary of my EvC participation.
Oni writes: I'd rather watch two old ladies argue a over game of Bridge! Have you ever seen two old ladies fight over a game of bridge? It is not for the faint hearted.
Oni writes: No offense to either dude but, we need some action...some fire in a great debate. It's no fun if the debate ends in a handshake and a mutual respect of one another. Gross. True. True. Point well made. Point taken.
Oni writes: Here are my votes: How about Oni vs Petrophysics on morality and lifestyle choices?
Oni writes: Straggler vs Oni in an old school B-Boy break dancing challenge. The winner is the one who gets up in the morning with the least amount of pain. Webcams at the ready.........And BRRREEEAAAKKKK (**Straggler starts popping and bopping to the beat**)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Perhaps it might also be interesting to see our esteemed members take a totally opposite view and debate that view against a similarily opposite view.. It's an interesting idea. You could argue that a really good debater should be able to argue both sides of anything.
X writes: For example, let's say Straggler takes the YEC Creationist ID viewpoint and Buzsaw takes the Evolutionary/ordinary random mutation viewpoint. When Percy was looking for a creationist partner for (now suspended member) Faith I offered to try and take the creationist side with her as a sort of intellectual challenge. Percy considered it but ultimately wasn't convinced it was viable. On reflection I think he was right. The danger is that you just present a caricature of the position you don't really hold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The danger is that you just present a caricature of the position you don't really hold. lol . . .which would be different for you how? You already have argued against caricatures of arguments made by others rather than address the actual arguments, so wouldn't that just complete the process? Curiously, we commonly tell creationist noobs to study some biology if they are going to argue against evolution -- to KNOW the information they are criticizing. Of course it would help to have an open mind to take an opposite position. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
You could argue that a really good debater should be able to argue both sides of anything. As I had always been taught about debating, you are supposed to be able to argue either side of any issue. It's all about the art of argumentation and not about the issues themselves. Having a YEC argue for evolution and an "evolutionist" argue the YEC side would be interesting. I would anticipate that the YEC's presentation will be filled with gross misinformation and warped misunderstanding of what he's arguing for, based on his already existing warped misunderstanding of evolution and science. I anticipate that the "evolutionist's" YEC presentation will be filled with lies and deception and thus be indistinguishable from a real YEC's presentation of the same. One mistake that I anticipate an evolutionist playing YEC would make would be to take the claims too seriously, in which case he may try to analyze them and present a too lucid and detailed account of the claims. Even worse, he may be more likely to allow himself to be drawn into discussing and defending the claims, something that real creationists know to avoid at all costs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
dwise writes: As I had always been taught about debating, you are supposed to be able to argue either side of any issue. It's all about the art of argumentation and not about the issues themselves. Yeah - In a competetive debate you simply get given the position you are going to argue and have to make the case whether you agree with it or not.
Dwise writes: Having a YEC argue for evolution and an "evolutionist" argue the YEC side would be interesting. there might well be merit in Xongsmith's suggestion. I am not sure but willing to find out. It would be interesting whether it works or not. Any suggestions as to who or what would make a good "reverse posittion" Great Debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Wouldn't a good evo candidate be a former fundie?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024