Proposal: Can Atheism refute Theism? Atheists to attack, Theists to rebut.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:18 am

As per title. Should be simple thrust and parry, move on to next point, repeat.

Maybe 20 attacks as the limit for the Atheist participant.

8 logical fallacies permitted per participant before disqualification.

I'd tentatively take the Theist side.

I shall accept any number of opponents, but the max. no. of opponents = max. no. of questions l guess? Unrealistic to have that many ppl involved though. So basically, l'd see if there's any interest, and then those interested can arrange among themselves how many of them would like to enter the debate.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:22 am

Edit: 8 logical fallacies permitted each side, not per participant.

Val · Post by **Val** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:22 am

Val · Post by **Val** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:25 am

I'll bite!

Har har har har

DMB · Post by **DMB** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:50 am

I doubt that you'll find many people here who would claim that the statement "a god exists" could be either proved or disproved, so I don't think you'll get many takers.

Val · Post by **Val** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:54 am

Hey, don't spoil my fun, woman!

plebian · Post by **plebian** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:08 am

Here's one: why does it matter?

Wizofoz · Post by **Wizofoz** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:53 am

the¦ism.

NOUN

1.belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Clearly Theists and therefore Theism exists- do you refute that?

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:11 pm

[quote=""Politically Correct""]8 logical fallacies permitted per participant before disqualification.[/quote]

8? Why would any logical fallacies be permitted? They're fallacies. They should never be permitted by definition.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:37 pm

[quote=""R. Soul""]I'll bite!

Har har har har[/quote]

Okay then. This would be my last debate on here for a while though. I will try other forums after this.

[quote=""DMB""]I doubt that you'll find many people here who would claim that the statement "a god exists" could be either proved or disproved, so I don't think you'll get many takers.[/quote]

No, not if you go on about it like that.
Also, it was in my very first post on here (intro thread) that I explained that Atheism and Theism can't be proven or disproven, and l hope to illustrate that through this debate, in the spirit of secularism (not quite key to secularism, l know).

[quote=""plebian""]Here's one: why does it matter?[/quote]

This is a debate forum. QED.
Why does it matter that it matters? Why do you matter?

[quote=""Wizofoz""]the¦ism.

NOUN

1.belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Clearly Theists and therefore Theism exists- do you refute that?[/quote]

"Refute" unqualified = refute the substance of the thing being refuted.
"Refute" qualified with "the existence of" = to refute the existence of the thing being refuted.

I don't think you'll have an easy time in this debate, were it to take place.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

Politically Correct;623486 wrote:8 logical fallacies permitted per participant before disqualification.

8? Why would any logical fallacies be permitted? They're fallacies. They should never be permitted by definition.[/QUOTE]

If you were concerned about logical fallacies l'd have thought you'd swoop down on them here http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=35696

But you didn't so l shan't assume you really are. Btw, the allowance is a concession to my opponent not me, l don't plan on making any fallacies. Any that crop up are put down by merely naming them, as is the nature of a fallacy exposed.

DMB · Post by **DMB** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:26 pm

[staffnote=Admin Note]We now have two agreed participants: Politically Correct and R. Soul. Details will be worked out by PM, so it will take a little while to get things going. Only these two will be participating, but a peanut gallery will be set up for spectators/commentators.

I am now temporarily locking this thread.[/staffnote]

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:41 am

Thread re-opened for further discussion.

PC, R. Soul; we need to firm up the terms and conditions here, if this is going to happen. How many rounds do you want to go? How long should the posts be, max?

Also, we (I, since I'd be doing the debate moderation) won't judge who commits a logical fallacy. If you are serious about that, how do you propose to count them?

Full disclosure: when we first started the Secular Cafe, one of our founding admins, Redshirt, was a master of debate moderation. (Note that I am not calling him a master debater, mind.

) Since he resigned, I've been trying to do it, but I am a rank amateur at overseeing formal debates; so be forewarned that I may screw up. Be sure to save a copy of all your posts to the actual debate!

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:46 am

I would hope there'd be no toleration for sophistry - as some people are good at formal debates simply because they are very good at sophistry. Most creationists come to mind.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:59 am

[quote=""Jobar""]How many rounds do you want to go? How long should the posts be, max? [/quote]

Max. 10 rounds (if 1 round = 1 post per side),
300 words per post.

Speaker for Atheism (R. Soul) is to make a max. 20 refutations of Theism.

Speaker for Theism (moi) is to rebut them as best he can.

[quote=""Jobar""]Also, we (I, since I'd be doing the debate moderation) won't judge who commits a logical fallacy. If you are serious about that, how do you propose to count them?[/quote]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]8? Why would any logical fallacies be permitted? They're fallacies. They should never be permitted by definition.[/quote]

[quote=""MattShizzle""]I would hope there'd be no toleration for sophistry - as some people are good at formal debates simply because they are very good at sophistry.[/quote]

I actually agree with Koyaanisqatsi and Matt, except that my prior discussions on this website have been thick with logical fallacies being posed to me, so l thought allowing 8 per side would at least give the debate a chance to fully roll out.

[quote=""Jobar""] I am a rank amateur at overseeing formal debates; so be forewarned that I may screw up. Be sure to save a copy of all your posts to the actual debate![/quote]

We need to keep tabs on sophistry / use of logical fallacies. How do we count logical fallacies? They are objective, and a list can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

We all know them by instinct anyway, even if the sophist feigns ignorance ... he knows.

So, when a logical fallacy is called out, the actual contentious statement is quoted, the logical fallacy it points to is named, the logical fallacy is explained, and further, it is explained how it applies to the contentious statement quoted. Then, the judge of the debate decides whether it is indeed a logical fallacy.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:07 am

I rather think that would lead to lots of argument over whose fallacy is the bigger, but if R. Soul wants to do it that way, then OK.

300 words is much too short for this sort of disputation, from my experience. Perhaps a maximum of 3000, with no set minimum?

Also, 10 rounds is longer than any debate I recall. I would advise between 3 and 5, with the option to continue if both sides agree.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:12 am

Please, at this point only Politically Correct, R. Soul, and I should post to this thread. When the debate gets set up, we'll then have a Peanut Gallery thread in Religion where everyone (except the two debaters) will be free to comment.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:12 am

Edit: make that 500 words per post. I'm trying to figure out what 500 words looks right but l think it's just the right size. Up to R. Soul to agree or not.

I'll be honest, on this and other websites, l have never read any of the opening posts in a formal debate. They are too long. I feel it spoils what could have been a high octane contest.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:16 am

[quote=""Jobar""]I rather think that would lead to lots of argument over whose fallacy is the bigger, [/quote]

Lawl. In case that wasn't a sly joke, then, no: each fallacy is just a fallacy to me, a little twist that diverts thought into a dead end, rather than the main road.

[quote=""Jobar""] 300 words is much too short for this sort of disputation, from my experience. Perhaps a maximum of 3000, with no set minimum?

Also, 10 rounds is longer than any debate I recall. I would advise between 3 and 5, with the option to continue if both sides agree.[/quote]

Okay, how about 1000 words per post? Enjoyability surely drops rapidly after that. [EDIT: Actually, OK, 3000 max, and l myself will try to keep it less than that]

5 rounds then?

Val · Post by **Val** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:56 am

John, the fallacy body count thing also concerns me because it provides a red herring to hide behind. But that's the game that Politically Correct wants to play and that's fine by me.

1000 words max, maximum five rounds.

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:04 am

[quote=""R. Soul""]John, the fallacy body count thing also concerns me because it provides a red herring to hide behind.[/quote]

Simply put, fallacy is error, and therefore counterproductive to a debate. There is no good reason to defend error. It might have a place outside of the debate, after all is said and done, to have a laugh about what happened, because jokes are a mix of truth and error / distortion of truth.

However, the debate is to me, a quest to establish the right and wrong of a thing. Fallacies detract from the quest for truth that is a debate, except when the fallacies are exposed (hence the wrong of a thing is established), hence l requested a count of fallacies, which amounts to exposing them.

There's no good reason not to want fallacies exposed in a debate. It's fallacies that are hiding places, the truth sets you free.

Val · Post by **Val** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:33 am

Wotever floats yer boat.

So. Agreement?

Debate Topic: Can Atheism refute Theism?
Max rounds: Five
Max words per round: 1000
Opening arguments: R. Soul
To rebut: Politically Correct

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:41 am

Agreed

Val · Post by **Val** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:43 am

Right. MODS! You know what to do!

P.S. One more point of order, how much time allowed for responses? 1 Day?

Politically Correct · Post by **Politically Correct** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:31 am

I'd say 36 hrs permitted per response.

Val · Post by **Val** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:47 am

Bit slow are ya? Cool.