Debating at CW.org

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 07:45pm

http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=3022

I've made my recommendations. Other people should feel free to contribute.

Also we need to decide on topics and a representatives for those topics.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 08:15pm

For posterity, here is the exchange of challenges so far, starting with SBollinger:

SBollinger
Site Administrator

Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 91
Location: Fort Worth, TX.
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 12:46 am Post subject: We have a debate! The Apologist vs ???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Bob Moore:

We are about to have our second formal debate. Here are the rules:

1. It will be conducted only in the Formal Debate thread.
2. Only the two participants (and the Moderator) can post.
3. The Moderators color for inserted comments is RED. Participants will refrain from using red in any post.
4. Only one point at a time can be raised, and answers must address the point.
5. The opening statement will be by the side who guesses closest to a number I select between 1-1,000. Said number to be preselected and sent to Sam Bollinger before the participants post their guesses.
6. There will be no ad hominium attacks.
7. If a fallacy of logic is pointed out, the one making the error will be permitted to restate his question/answer.
8. A violation of any of these rules will result in a "Formal Warning" stating clearly what the problem is. Either side may draw to the Moderators attention any point that seems to be out of order. Accumulation of three (3) Formal Warnings by either side results in the other side winning by default which, for all practical purposes is as good as a clear win.
9. The debate will progress through ten cycles of Q&A for each side. At the end of ten cycles each side will be permitted a closing statement.
10 The Moderator will render his decision within 5 days, and will state his reasons.

_________________
'olam ha-ze

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 08:15pm

The Apologist
Member

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 41
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:19 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, I am challenging the "invaders" from stardestroyer.net. I would like for them to select whomever they believe is their strongest debator, the representative of stardestroyer.net, if you will, as my opponent for a match, to determine which board truly is the more intellectual. This is your chance to "conquer" Creationweb, so choose your man wisely.

By the way, Bob, perhaps you could give us a little more leeway in the debate guidelines. Do you not agree that it would be a more productive debate if allowed to take its own course, with moderator intervention taking place only if the discussion gets too far off-topic? I know it is supposed to be "formal" debate, but I do not think that such formality will bring out the best of my and my opponent's abilities.

To whomever is elected as stardestroyer.net's representative: register, if you have not already, and announce your election to me and the moderator here, and we will discuss what the topic of the debate shall be.

_________________

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 08:16pm

Our replies, from WeeMadAndo and Durandal:

weemadando
Member

Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 42

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:42 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look I'd like to propose some changes in the debate....

For starters: "Determining which board is more intellectual..." What kind of goal is that? Perhaps a better aim for a debate would be to determine the case in point, something like: "Is the bible an accurate historical document?" or "Is young-earth creationism a valid theory?" Such broad assumptions of board intellect are truly the sign of someone with delusions of grandeur.

Moderators will have NO influence on the debate. Not even to comment.

Post lengths will be limited to 1500 words (this is just a proposal number).

10 cycles is a little long. I'd recommend 5, with both an opening and closing arguement.

ALL points must be supported by evidence. Burden of proof will be determined by the debaters prior to the debate beginning.

Logical fallacies will result in a warning. However continued usage will result in an immediate defeat and concession of all points.

And the moderator WILL NOT be the deciding authority. Perhaps a poll or series of posted votes will be a better method.

And though I may well be one of the debaters, I am not taking that role until a debate topic has been decided on and us over at SD.net can decide on who to take the debate(s).

_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 08:17pm

Durandal
Member

Joined: 03 Nov 2002
Posts: 2

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:04 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are my recommendations.

Creationism vs. Evolution is an extremely broad topic. Creationism doesn't just have beefs with the biological community. It also touches on many aspects of astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics and cosmology. It would be best for both sides if we narrowed the debate(s) down.

My recommendations for topics.

Young Earth Creationism vs. The Modern Cosmological and Astrophysical Models for the origins of the universe.

Creationism vs. Evolutionary Theory for scientific validity.

Biblical Accounts of Events vs. Recorded History.

And whatever other topics the people here can think of. The point is that engaging in such a broad, sweeping topic like Creationism vs. Evolution would make for a very sporadic debate. It would be difficult for outside observers to follow it due to touching on too many different fields.

I would say that 5 exchanges is more than enough. If we enact a 2-day response period, that will give us a 10-day debate, which is plenty for both boards.

Since creationists are attacking accepted scientific theories, they should be the ones to make the opening statements. The theories in question are on the defensive side, here.

The moderators from both sites are clearly bias, so I see no reason why either should have a say in the outcome. If anything else, we should have our debate and then run polls on each board. Also, no one but the two participants will be allowed to post in said threads. Moderators will not be able to modify posts in any way. This will help keep the debate clean on both sides, and it will minimize the chances of accusations of deliberate post editing or distorting.

The ultimate goal is not to determine "intellectual superiority"; it is to determine which theory better fits the facts. Creationists must show two things: A) That evolutionary theory does not fit observed data, and B) that creationism fits observed data more accurately. Since creationists are seeking recognition from a scientific perspective, the scientific method is the ultimate arbiter in this debate. This means that the theory with the least amount of unknown, undefined terms and best fits the facts will win the day.

_________________
Damien Sorresso

Back to top

Durandal
Member

Joined: 03 Nov 2002
Posts: 2

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:10 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More stuff which I forgot.

Each side will obviously select a champion for each topical debate. I've volunteered myself for debating against young-earth creationism, and I await the selection of a champion from these boards.

We've had a number of people over at SD.Net volunteer for other topics, but it will be up to the CW.Org denizens to determine whether or not they wish to engage in such debates. Visit the SD.Net boards for more details.

However, I feel that the young-earth creationism vs. modern cosmology debate is one that CW.Org cannot pass up, as it is extremely relevent to the argument at hand, as is the creationism vs. the biological evolution model.

_________________
Damien Sorresso

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 08:17pm

My own recommendations, as "Ze'ev-Eretz"

Ze'ev-Eretz
Member

Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 28
Location: Fort Metz'ada
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all at CreationWeb, Greetings!

I would like to thank you for reinstating my account status. I was quite enjoying the give-and-take before the moods turned sour. That said, I would like to get on with the business at hand:

My fellows at StarDestroyer.net are choosing their champions, it was originally thought that we would have a three-on-three style or perhaps one team from each board of two debaters each, if these styles might be more interesting and provide a variety of specialists to match wits. Topics would be chosen and adhered to, straying from the topic will bring warning while multiple warnings, of course, result in suspension for the guilty team member.

Topics considered (but not limited to):

Secular Humanism and Christian Morality; Creation and Evolution (biology and/or cosmology); Biblical Validity; or others to be chosen and approved.

I suggest grading be done by five members of StarDestroyer.net and five memebres of CreationWeb who observe but do not coach the debaters during rounds. Judges will grade on a 1-10 scale (1 is worst, 10 is best) on the debaters' performance in the following arenas:

Effective use of Evidence
Clarity of Communication
Staying on Topic/Relevancy
Convincing
Civility

Any further suggestions? Please feel free to reply here or to contact us at stardestroyer.net

Thank you for your time.

Ze'ev-Eretz

_________________
"Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai elohainu, Adonai ahad"

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-04 08:20pm

If no one else wants to, I'll debate.

. . . .

Who am I kidding. There's probably three thousand people waiting in line in front of me.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-11-04 08:35pm

Unless skepticboy is the moderator of this debate, we're probably gonna get screwed. All the others are illogical and irrational, and mean, to boot.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 08:41pm

OK... I'm starting a topics list. If you want to nominate yourself for a topic go ahead, but someone else should second it, or perhaps we should even hold a poll on who gets the more contentious ones.

-Biblical Accounts of Events vs. Recorded History.

-Young Earth Creationism vs. The Modern Cosmological and Astrophysical Models for the origins of the universe.

-Creationism vs. Evolutionary Theory for scientific validity.

-Gap theory vs. Geological evidence.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-04 08:46pm

*Digs out notes from ASP406 - Modern Cosmology*

You know what I want, Baby.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 08:54pm

Durandal wrote:*Digs out notes from ASP406 - Modern Cosmology*

You know what I want, Baby. :)

Looks at courses done at university... Mmm...

Biblical history please!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 08:56pm

If you're having a grading scale, the graders should have to show why they chose how they did.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-04 09:11pm

Creation vs. Evolution

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 09:17pm

Yogi wrote:Creation vs. Evolution :)

Thats pretty broad... Do you want to narrow it down, or are you happy that you can hold your own on that topic.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-04 09:18pm

I hereby second the nominations for:

WeeMadAndo in the History arena.

Durandal in the Creation/Cosmology arena.

Any dissent?

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-04 09:24pm

weemadando wrote:Thats pretty broad... Do you want to narrow it down, or are you happy that you can hold your own on that topic.

I guess it's Young Earth Creationism vs. Evolution.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-04 09:32pm

I've already called and been seconded on young-earth creationism, unless you have more expertise or knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology than I do ... which you may very well, I don't know.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-04 09:54pm

And the moderator WILL NOT be the deciding authority. Perhaps a poll or series of posted votes will be a better method. - weemadando

I can see where your going with this but why not let the general audience draw their own conclusions? Darth Wong doesn't have a poll to see who wins in his debates. A poll can be loaded which then renders it useless. Why not just have some commentary solicited from the more prominent members of each board who didn't participate in the debate?

XPViking

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-04 11:36pm

Durandal wrote:I've already called and been seconded on young-earth creationism, unless you have more expertise or knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology than I do ... which you may very well, I don't know.

All right, how about the validity of the Theory of Evolution in general? Essencially, they try to prove Evolution wrong, and I show them otherwise.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-05 12:40am

If you wish, although if Admiral Vademar steps up, you'll have to abdicate that throne, as he has a degree in biology.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-05 01:12am

If we're going to use a panel of five judges, I think that Neeolong, Vympel, The Dark, and myself (Coyote) would be a good start, unless anyone objects/has better ideas. Any other ideas for the fifth, if this is the protocol we're going to use? Maybe Yogi, if you're not in the trenches?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-05 02:05am

Coyote wrote:If we're going to use a panel of five judges, I think that Neeolong, Vympel, The Dark, and myself (Coyote) would be a good start, unless anyone objects/has better ideas. Any other ideas for the fifth, if this is the protocol we're going to use? Maybe Yogi, if you're not in the trenches?

I'm willing. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Might I also suggest Cyril or another Christian from this board, gives them less of an argument that we are all God-hating Atheists.

How appropriate, my 500th post, and now I am a Jedi Knight, ready to help rid the world of idiocy.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-11-05 05:11am

I voulunteer for... anything really

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-05 11:11am

NecronLord wrote:I voulunteer for... anything really

Ditto that.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2002-11-05 11:16am

verilon wrote:
NecronLord wrote:I voulunteer for... anything really
Ditto that.

I make three on the voulunteer roster. Gotta go to spanish now but wondering if verilon or necronlord have any knowledge expertise... will post mine at a later time.