StarDestroyer.Net BBS

havokeff wrote:Out of curiosity, why is the Coliseum restricted to one debate at a time? And please don't say because of not being able to focus on more than one thread at a time, on a board with thousands of concurrently running topics.

Do you think we have infinite attention span, Havok? What are you, nuts? Spouting off completely sensible ideas like that, didn't your momma teach you anything? Everyone has to wait their turn, that's what the rules say.

havokeff wrote:Out of curiosity, why is the Coliseum restricted to one debate at a time? And please don't say because of not being able to focus on more than one thread at a time, on a board with thousands of concurrently running topics.

Because two sets of people have yet to come forward asking for two debates at the same time?
Also for scheduling purposes I want to keep a debate ongoing in the Coliseum at all times... which has so far not been possible.

I'm bumping this, as per Bean's suggestion, to declare an

OPEN CHALLENGE

for

COLISEUM DEBATE

on the issue of

BIBLICIST YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM versus MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTION.

Namely, using the arguments of presuppositionalist apologetics, I will contend that a Biblicist worldview is inherently superior to a materialist worldview and that, therefore, the account of Creation as depicted and preserved in the book of Genesis must be correct.

Terms (open for revision upon adoption of an opponent):

The debate will consist of three to five rounds, with five days given each contestant to pose each reply. A comment thread may be permitted; it will be upon each contestant's personal honor to not open or examine the comments. The winner of the debate will be judged by the quality of arguments, as dissected in the comments thread.

Why would I adopt such an obviously flawed position? First, arguing in support of a flawed position is a good way to get a strong grasp of the position's inherent weaknesses. Second, using flawed arguments (in this case, presuppositionalist apologetics) is a similarly good way to understand the weaknesses of the arguments and how to exploit them. Third, doing this will generate a lot more buzz than opening a thread in the "Debate Questions" forum, and I want to read plenty of perspectives on why the presuppers' arguments are wrong when I open up the Comments thread afterwards, instead of getting ten or fifteen replies. Fourth, the Coliseum has unfortunately gone unused for a long, long time, and I want to see blood littering the sands, goddamit. Fifth, I want to give someone the chance to win his laurels in the Coliseum - given that I am adopting the incorrect side, it shouldn't be as intimidating to any relative newbies as if I had said, "Anyone want to argue for YECism?" And sixth, as has been said elsewhere, "arguing" with someone who agrees with you is the equivalent of mental masturbation.

So, Stardestroyer.net, who will oppose me?

CHALLENGE TO STARGLIDER

for

COLISEUM DEBATE

on the issue of

U.S. AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS. MORE CONFIDENCE IN MILITARY DEFENCES AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONFIDENCE AND MILITARISM IN THE SPHERE OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCY.

The challenge is open at all times if Starglider feels N&P is not an appropriate venue for him. In case he agrees, he can formulate his points in the opening post if he be so willing, if not, I shall open the debate. That is better than the trolling and time-wasting in N&P.

A different question to Stas and others. What would be the problem in a mod going into your current debate, splitting out your posts into the Coli and just closing it off to you two?

No, it's not as highly stylized, but the forum would get some work.

I'm willing to debate anyone on the role of the christian church in antiquity and late antiquity, no matter the point they take.

Stas Bush wrote:CHALLENGE TO STARGLIDER

That would be an interesting debate, but unfortunately I'm not qualified for it - I don't have any qualifications in the field, or any personal authority, and although I am a keen reader the history of the cold war has been a pretty tiny fraction of my intake. That said, even if I was, I'd only take it on if your stated position was that the USSR was the more virtuous superpower in the cold war, because your arguments do not make sense unless interpreted as rationalisations to that end. Good luck on finding another member for that debate though, and if anyone wants to debate something AI related, I am up for it (given some scheduling flexibility).

Starglider wrote:I'd only take it on if your stated position was that the USSR was the more virtuous superpower in the cold war

I doubt I ever expressed such a position. It's a strawman you manufactured. Moreover, the whole talk about the USSR is patently unrelated to the main issue which was the relationship between nuclear defence, offence, and deterrency.

However, since you lack knowledge, I think I could offer the same topic to Shep (he wanted to participate):
U.S. AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS. MORE CONFIDENCE IN MILITARY DEFENCES AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONFIDENCE AND MILITARISM IN THE SPHERE OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCY.

What about debating Axis Kast about it, since you two are already going at it? The McNamara thread is no longer about the dead guy so why not just formalize it?

If Axis wants to debate the topic outlined above, why not. But not the sidetracks about "political practice of Soviet foreign relations", I'm afraid, which never was a subject. I feel our debate is ending anyway.

Surlethe wrote:I'm bumping this, as per Bean's suggestion, to declare an

OPEN CHALLENGE

for

COLISEUM DEBATE

on the issue of

BIBLICIST YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM versus MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTION.

Namely, using the arguments of presuppositionalist apologetics, I will contend that a Biblicist worldview is inherently superior to a materialist worldview and that, therefore, the account of Creation as depicted and preserved in the book of Genesis must be correct.

Terms (open for revision upon adoption of an opponent):

The debate will consist of three to five rounds, with five days given each contestant to pose each reply. A comment thread may be permitted; it will be upon each contestant's personal honor to not open or examine the comments. The winner of the debate will be judged by the quality of arguments, as dissected in the comments thread.

Why would I adopt such an obviously flawed position? First, arguing in support of a flawed position is a good way to get a strong grasp of the position's inherent weaknesses. Second, using flawed arguments (in this case, presuppositionalist apologetics) is a similarly good way to understand the weaknesses of the arguments and how to exploit them. Third, doing this will generate a lot more buzz than opening a thread in the "Debate Questions" forum, and I want to read plenty of perspectives on why the presuppers' arguments are wrong when I open up the Comments thread afterwards, instead of getting ten or fifteen replies. Fourth, the Coliseum has unfortunately gone unused for a long, long time, and I want to see blood littering the sands, goddamit. Fifth, I want to give someone the chance to win his laurels in the Coliseum - given that I am adopting the incorrect side, it shouldn't be as intimidating to any relative newbies as if I had said, "Anyone want to argue for YECism?" And sixth, as has been said elsewhere, "arguing" with someone who agrees with you is the equivalent of mental masturbation.

So, Stardestroyer.net, who will oppose me?

I will happily take your challenge, if no one else wants to.

Surlethe wrote:*snip challenge*

Well, if for some reason Aly can't or won't do this, I guess I'll give it a shot. Since you're issuing the challenge, will you have the initial burden of proof?

Yes, I'd probably have the initial burden of proof. I and whomever is elected to oppose me would have to work out the details, though.

Surlethe wrote:Yes, I'd probably have the initial burden of proof. I and whomever is elected to oppose me would have to work out the details, though.

Heh. Even if you do man, I might have to, you know, actually work at this one. Pull out the philosophy texts and such. It will be fun

So, is Surlethe going to choose someone for this shindig or what? Just curious since I haven't seen anything on it in a while.

he has two options... One individual who very consciously holds the position which he is opposing

I figured that we could throw together some sort of vote. Also, I wasn't going to act on it for about two weeks: vacation to visit family means I'll be scarce for a while.

Dominus Atheos wrote:So apparently the consensus in the IvP moratorium threads in the HoC and Senate was do a coliseum debate, so con we get some volunteers for that? No one wants to see Shep vs Elfdart again, but we have several mods/senators on both sides of the issue. How about Coyote vs Edi, or Ender vs Keeven? I'm really interested in reading a debate on this topic, and I'm sure others are too.

Agreed. Even if no consensus is reached, it will demonstrate once and for all why the moratorium exists in a single comprehensive thread that will be easy to direct newcomers to, and it will give us as good an opportunity as any to work out what the terms to rule a debate in the Coliseum a draw, undecided, etc, might be.