Challenge: can you argue the opposite side?

Typist · Post by **Typist** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:36 am

Can you actually come up with an original argument

I would have to see compelling evidence of original arguments to believe in their existence.

This seems relevant here because all threads on all forums on this topic appear to already contain nothing but members making somebody else's arguments.

A primary illusion driving forum activity on such topics seems to be the sense we have as we post that we're articulating "our point of view".

Once we take imaginary ownership of whatever we're typing, then the focus tends to rather easily shift from the ideas to their "owner", launching the more heat than light conflicts.

What's interesting about this thread is the process of putting "it's not really my idea" out on the table where we all can see it.

rog · Post by **rog** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:52 am

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
Oh, I just thought: to stop either of us recycling other people's ideas, how about we have to develop an original argument fr our position that isn't standard internet or forum fodder?[/quote]

I have some ideas that use my tenuous grasp of physics, the only downside there is that people who actually know about physics would complain.

subsymbolic · Post by **subsymbolic** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:20 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]

Wollstonia;448671 wrote:I'm new here so forgive me if I blunder about.

First of all I'm never sure about debates that are organised in order to be won. Winning implies there must be a loser. I would have thought far better to discuss something in a way which moves knowledge along to the benefit of all rather than destroy a point of view.

Secondly taking the opposite point of view to that which you believe could mean that your actual belief is underpinned by a set of clever tricks and devices and would have no substance, which sort of destroys the principle of debate.

Hi Wollstonia!

Normally, debates on SC are not of the formal variety, and even in this case, I doubt there will be a winner or loser declared as such. Exclusive Engagements are sort of a specialized form, and if you look through this subforum, you can see we've only had a handful or two in the history of SC, and even fewer that actually made it through to the final round. Usually, discussion threads are a free-for-all, and participants are winners only in their own minds. Even in this case, it's certainly meant for fun and enlightenment, not deciding the fate of anyone's soul.

As for the conceit of playing the devil's advocate, consider it an intellectual exercise of sorts, like yoga for one's belief structures. I don't think it impacts on the integrity of either of our actual positions.[/QUOTE]

Ha! Says you. By the end of our debate I confidently expect you will be converted to a universalist Christian position from your Godless misery.

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:51 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

Politesse;448675 wrote:
Wollstonia;448671 wrote:I'm new here so forgive me if I blunder about.

First of all I'm never sure about debates that are organised in order to be won. Winning implies there must be a loser. I would have thought far better to discuss something in a way which moves knowledge along to the benefit of all rather than destroy a point of view.

Secondly taking the opposite point of view to that which you believe could mean that your actual belief is underpinned by a set of clever tricks and devices and would have no substance, which sort of destroys the principle of debate.
Hi Wollstonia! Normally, debates on SC are not of the formal variety, and even in this case, I doubt there will be a winner or loser declared as such. Exclusive Engagements are sort of a specialized form, and if you look through this subforum, you can see we've only had a handful or two in the history of SC, and even fewer that actually made it through to the final round. Usually, discussion threads are a free-for-all, and participants are winners only in their own minds. Even in this case, it's certainly meant for fun and enlightenment, not deciding the fate of anyone's soul.

As for the conceit of playing the devil's advocate, consider it an intellectual exercise of sorts, like yoga for one's belief structures. I don't think it impacts on the integrity of either of our actual positions.

Ha! Says you. By the end of our debate I confidently expect you will be converted to a universalist Christian position from your Godless misery.

[/QUOTE]

lmfao! Please stop being condescending. Next you will be saying you will pray for us godless atheists!

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:57 pm

Also, I think we should stick to a small topic rather than trying to prove the whole concept of one religion or the other.

"God exists"
"The proof of the Exodus"
"The infallibility of the Bible"

etc...Pick one thing rather than the whole shabang. It will limit the arguments and lessen the burden on the "believer".

See what a fair atheist I am?

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:18 pm

I figured we might as well start with a classic.

Wollstonia · Post by **Wollstonia** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:29 pm

I'm still mildly bewildered here. I sort of understand the concept of what is being proposed , but I think it belongs with formal exercises in rhetoric and other Renaissance concepts. However, to prove belief or otherwise in a Non- human being by using points of view based on human experience does appear somewhat fruitless.

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:52 pm

[quote=""Wollstonia""]I'm still mildly bewildered here. I sort of understand the concept of what is being proposed , but I think it belongs with formal exercises in rhetoric and other Renaissance concepts. However, to prove belief or otherwise in a Non- human being by using points of view based on human experience does appear somewhat fruitless.[/quote]

I think the point is not to actually prove or disprove anything but to experience the other side.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:43 pm

[quote=""Politesse""] making a "strawman" argument for the purpose shoring up your real-life position will defeat the purpose of the exercise.[/quote]

If only that rule were actually ever applied by theists.

Is anyone game?

I am. But you can't just let me win

.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:17 pm

I think Lulu v Koy should happen.

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:19 pm

I am good with that. I think it will be some serious fun especially since my position is SOOOO easy.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:10 pm

Great! Someone come up with the topic and I'll go affirmative.

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:14 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Great! Someone come up with the topic and I'll go affirmative.[/quote]

What do you want to do? I am fine with everything.

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:56 pm

Why don't we let Poli set the parameters and the topic (including any definitions so that neither of us can go down a "well I define X to be Y" kind of dodge)?

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:09 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Why don't we let Poli set the parameters and the topic (including any definitions so that neither of us can go down a "well I define X to be Y" kind of dodge)?[/quote]

okies!

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:37 pm

Oh, back to me, is it? How about you guys tackle:

The Bible is the inspired word of God.

Same parameters of a four part argument, Koy is pro- and Lulu is anti-, the Bible is defined as any translation of the Protestant scriptures (and as a possible red herring the question of what is canon is to be considered out of bounds for this debate), inspired means that God is the ultimate source of the text, not necessarily arguing literalism, but rather the more general sort of inspiration that almost all Christians would agree to. God is the God described therein.

What do you guys think?

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:39 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]Oh, back to me, is it? How about you guys tackle:

The Bible is the inspired word of God.

Same parameters of a four part argument, Koy is pro- and Lulu is anti-, the Bible is defined as any translation of the Protestant scriptures (and as a possible red herring the question of what is canon is to be considered out of bounds for this debate), inspired means that God is the ultimate source of the text, not necessarily arguing literalism, but rather the more general sort of inspiration that almost all Christians would agree to. God is the God described therein.

What do you guys think?[/quote]

Okay. It has been 30 years since I participated in a formal debate, and never online, so please prompt me with the proper form. Can you do that?

subsymbolic · Post by **subsymbolic** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:53 pm

[quote=""Lulu""]

Wollstonia;448764 wrote:I'm still mildly bewildered here. I sort of understand the concept of what is being proposed , but I think it belongs with formal exercises in rhetoric and other Renaissance concepts. However, to prove belief or otherwise in a Non- human being by using points of view based on human experience does appear somewhat fruitless.

I think the point is not to actually prove or disprove anything but to experience the other side.[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself, I'm doing it as a selfless act of agape: I can't bear the idea of Poli ending up in Hell and so I will forego my lonely Godless atheism to give the poor soul a shot at eternal bliss. It's the least I can do...

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:55 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

Lulu;448774 wrote:
Wollstonia;448764 wrote:I'm still mildly bewildered here. I sort of understand the concept of what is being proposed , but I think it belongs with formal exercises in rhetoric and other Renaissance concepts. However, to prove belief or otherwise in a Non- human being by using points of view based on human experience does appear somewhat fruitless.
I think the point is not to actually prove or disprove anything but to experience the other side.

Speak for yourself, I'm doing it as a selfless act of agape: I can't bear the idea of Poli ending up in Hell and so I will forego my lonely Godless atheism to give the poor soul a shot at eternal bliss. It's the least I can do...[/QUOTE]

*snicker*

Well, if she doesn't listen, I suppose you can warm your hands over the fire.

Typist · Post by **Typist** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:59 pm

For tidiness I suggest...

1) This thread remain about the nature of this game.

2) Each debate team gets it's own thread, where only they are allowed to post.

3) One or more separate threads contain the comments of those of us not on a debate team.

Perhaps this is already the plan?

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:01 pm

[quote=""Typist""]For tidiness I suggest...

1) This thread remain about the nature of this game.

2) Each debate team gets it's own thread, where only they are allowed to post.

3) One or more separate threads contain the comments of those of us not on a debate team.

Perhaps this is already the plan?[/quote]

Peanut gallery thread is how I have seen it done before.

One thread for the actual debate, and one for the popcorn eaters.

Typist · Post by **Typist** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:19 pm

[quote=""Lulu""]One thread for the actual debate, and one for the popcorn eaters.[/quote]

Ah, good, thanks for educating me on the process.

Personally, I'm most looking forward to watching as gentle Lulu rips those pathetic little idiot woo infested god botherers to shreds, as they so justly deserve!!!

Lulu · Post by **Lulu** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:32 pm

[quote=""Typist""]

Lulu;448874 wrote:One thread for the actual debate, and one for the popcorn eaters.

Ah, good, thanks for educating me on the process.

Personally, I'm most looking forward to watching as gentle Lulu rips those pathetic little idiot woo infested god botherers to shreds, as they so justly deserve!!!

[/QUOTE]

lol!!!!!

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:02 am

[quote=""Typist""]For tidiness I suggest...

1) This thread remain about the nature of this game.

2) Each debate team gets it's own thread, where only they are allowed to post.

3) One or more separate threads contain the comments of those of us not on a debate team.

Perhaps this is already the plan?[/quote]

Yes, the way it works is that the parameters are outlined here, then an admin, usually Redshirt, sets up two threads for the debaters, one a formal Exclusive Engagement up in the other subforum, and one called the Peanut Gallery so that other forumers can comment on the proceedings (only the EE participants are allowed in the official thread).

Typist · Post by **Typist** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:14 am

Cool, I like it, I see you guys are way ahead of me. Standing by, munching popcorn, happily awaiting the inversion of the rhetorical universe...