The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
RLBaty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,970 times Debate No: 29422
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

Mangani

Pro

The debate will be formatted as follows:

Round 1- No arguments. Acceptance, rules, definitions, and any necessary clarifications will be laid out.
Round 2- Opening statements- no rebuttals.
Round 3- 2 parts each- A rebuttal, then any new counterpoints will be presented.
Round 4- Same as 3.
Round 5- Conclusion- 2 parts. Part 1 will be used for any rebuttals to counterpoints in Round 4. Part 2 will be used as a closing statement- no new rebuttals, no new counterpoints.

Both Pro and Con have repeatedly attacked each other in separate venues with ad-hominem. Any argument that is attempted to be furthered by ad-hominem will, by rule, be considered moot. Ad-hominem will, as a rule, be ruled as bad conduct, and should be ruled as such. No insults will be tolerated.
__________________________________________________________________

Pro's position: RLBaty's YECS exercise is neither essential, nor sufficient in showing YECS (young-earth/creation science proponents) have flawed logic (according to RLBaty: YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills).

Con's position: RLBaty's YECS exercise is essential, and/or sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic.
___________________________________________________________________

Background, and minor premise (note that though the minor premise can be argued to support or discredit the major premise arguments, the minor premise is not essential to winning the debate):

RLBaty's Exercise (I have omitted some words for space; I have not changed the crux of his arguments)
THE INTRODUCTION
This exercise has been designed for certain young-earth creation-science promoters (i.e., Ken Ham, Kent Hovind) and their like-minded sympathizers with the intent to illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills.

The argument/exercise has been designed to accomplish such results without resorting to technical, scientific arguments better left to those with the requisite time, talent and skills to properly consider them.
__________
Major Premise of RLBaty's exercise:
IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and
IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and
IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years
THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor Premise of RLBaty's exercise:
(A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and
(B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and
(C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years.
Conclusion:
(D); The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

BASIC STIPULATIONS (of the exercise):
"God's word" - communication from God in words that are not wrong.
"Interpreted by some" - what some folks think it means and what thinking might be wrong.
"Empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years" - some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine from evidence and its interpretation independent of "the text".
"Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

Step #1: Is the argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is it logically valid)?
Step #2: Is the major premise, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, true?
Step #3: Do young-earth creation-science promoters reject the truth of the minor premise of the argument because they have their interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary.
______________________________________
Background:
This debate is being presented as a response to RLBaty's and Mangani's confrontations in different areas of DDO regarding this issue. Regardless of the claims elsewhere, this debate will serve to show definitively, in the eyes of other judges, who is right, wrong, or more correct (if that is the limit our arguments allow your judgment to achieve).

Again, this debate is not about whether or not RLBaty's arguments are sound, rather whether they are sufficient to determine what he says in the introduction the exercise is intended to determine, and whether or not they are consequential, or even essential to making the introductory point of his exercise.
_______________________________________
I have not presented any definitions, nor do I expect the need for definitions. Should semantics become an issue, the most rational definition should be used within the context of the discussion. This may have to be argued, it may be mutually agreed on, or it may end up having to be determined by the individual judge.
_______________________________________
Sources should appear as footnotes with a link at the bottom of each argument round.

I hope I have not missed anything, and if I have, I'm sure my opponent will point it out.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting, should he accept, and the judges for reading our debate.
RLBaty

Con

My opponent proposed that this first round is for:

- Acceptance,
- rules,
- definitions, and
- any necessary clarifications will be laid out.

I think I got the acceptance part done.

I'm not big into making rules and figure any problems with such things can be resolved along the way as they may become relevant.

The same goes for definitions.

Clarifications? OK, let me clarify what I am interested in doing in this discussion.

My acceptance of the invitation should not be interpreted in any way to mean that I endorse all that my opponent posted in his round 1. I believe that there are false and misleading claims made therein. We may get to them in due course should the conversation here continue. Otherwise, folks interested in such things may review the record of my previous history with Mangani here which I have preserved at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

If anyone wants to reply to anything they find there, they can do so simply by addressing their email reply to the following address; substituting @ for the (at):

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com

As I understand from the posting of this challenge, the proposition to be discussed is as follows:

RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS

Affirmd: Mangani
Denied: RLBaty

That proposition is the one posted at the top of the challenge.

If that is not the proposition to be discussed here, then I propose that my opponent withdraw from this discussion and consider posting a challenge that actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may or may not wish to discuss any such alternative proposition(s).

For now, I will look forward to my opponent's round 2 "opening statement" affirming that "RLBaty's exercise is pointless".
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking the debate, and I would also like to remind the readers of the rules I laid out in Round #1. The title of a debate does not disclose the full intentions or premise of the person posting the debate, and so I clarified, and posted the entire premise in Round #1. Con's has accepted my Round #1 stipulations.
_________________________________

My opening statement:

By the end of this debate I will have shown that RLBaty's YECS exercise (GOG for Goliath of Gras, as RLBaty has named his exercise) is neither essential, nor sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic. I will show there are much simpler exercises, ones that don't require any special names or deep intellectual inquiry, that can show YECS have flawed logic. To prove this, I will answer two simple questions:

1) Is GOG essential and/or necessary in showing that YECS have flawed logic?

And

2) Is GOG sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic?

GOG was designed some years ago to "illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills." In paraphrasing RLBaty's entire exercise, it basically states that:

1- YECS interpret "God's word (the text)" as claiming God created everything in six 24hour days.
2- YECS interpret "God's word (the text)" as claiming God created everything less than 100,000 years ago.
3- Empirical evidence proves some things are older than 100,000 years old.
4- YECS interpret "the text" incorrectly.

I assert the following:

1- For GOG to be essential, it must be a key factor in showing, as he states "why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills."
A) GOG does not sufficiently illustrate why YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and it does not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of their basic critical thinking skills.
B) GOG cannot be a key factor in reaching the goal of the exercise if it fails to meet the goal of the exercise.

2- For GOG to be essential or sufficient, all the conclusions reached in the exercise must be true.
A) Is the major premise, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, true?
1) His major premise is untrue because it relies on false stipulations:
a. God's word- communication from God in words that are no wrong.
i. For this stipulation to be true, it must show that "God" has communicated to anyone who has, subsequently, recorded this communication in the form of text for all to read and interpret.
ii. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must be able to show that God exists.
iii. GOG does not identify what is purported to be God's word adequately ("the text" does not identify which body of work)
iv. GOG fails to defend or show the infallibility of this body of work referred to only as "the text."
v. GOG does not adequately establish the existence of God, and therefore the stipulation cannot be true.
b. Interpreted by some- what some folk think it means and what thinking might be wrong.
i. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must show how YECS interpretation of the text is incorrect vs. the text itself being incorrect.
ii. For this stipulation to be true, GOG must present an alternative interpretation vs. the text itself being incorrect vs. the interpretation of YECS.
iii. GOG offers neither an alternative interpretation, nor proof that the text itself is not incorrect, and therefore cannot be held as true.
c. Empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years - some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine from evidence and its interpretation independent of "the text"
i. For this stipulation to be true, evidence must be empirical.
ii. There is no such thing as "empirical evidence." That's why it's called "evidence" and not "proof."
iii. If there is no "empirical evidence," the stipulation cannot be true.
2. GOG's major premise cannot be true because it does not establish a standard for "the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning."
a. GOG does not identify what is "biblical common sense reasoning."
b. "Biblical" itself can refer to any of 900 English translations according to the American Bible Society (http://record.americanbible.org...) - all of which rely on the interpretation of the translators, and thousands of translations in hundreds of other languages.
c. Because GOG does not adequately define "sound biblical common sense reasoning," the major premise cannot be true.
3- For GOG to be sufficient, it must sow that "YECS reject the truth of the minor premise of the argument because they have their interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary."
A) GOG does not, until Step #3, identify "God's word (the text)" as referring to the bible.
1) Even when "God's word (the text)" is identified as "the Bible" in GOG, there is no specification as to what version of the bible, which language, and why YECS interpretation should not be considered as correct.
B) GOG offers no biblical interpretation countering that of YECS.
1) GOG accuses YECS of holding an incorrect interpretation, but offers no correctional rebuttal, only affirmations of inaccuracy.
C) GOG fails to show that YECS hold to their interpretation for any reason other than the literal text.
1) While GOG admits "the text" indicates "God created everything in 6 days," and challenges the literal interpretation, GOG does not offer an adequate rebuttal to this interpretation.
D) GOG fails to show how literal interpretation of "the Bible" is incorrect.

My opponent will argue that the stipulations are hypothetical. If we examine the stipulations, nowhere does GOG state them as hypothetical. GOG presupposes the existence of God, and the Bible as his infallible word. GOG further attacks those who interpret the text literally as having flawed logic, but fails to show how. I offer the following alternatives to GOG that both meet the goals of GOG, and prove it's inadequacy:

IF (A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days, and
IF (B) YECS believe everything was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago due to literal interpretation of the bible, then
(C) YECS do not incorrectly interpret the Bible.
______
(A) The bible literally states God created everything in 6 days
(B) YECS believe everything was created in six 24hr days a few thousand years ago due to literal interpretation of the bible.
(C) YECS do not incorrectly interpret the Bible.
_______
IF (A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days, and
IF (B) Scientific evidence suggests otherwise, then
(C) The Bible is incorrect.
______
(A) The Bible states everything was created in 6 days.
(B) Scientific evidence suggests otherwise.
(C) The Bible is incorrect.

GOG does not work given its own stipulations. It fails to demonstrate the extent of YECSs' basic, critical thinking skills. Because nothing is mentioned of their legal challenges, including alternative arguments to the ones they present, it fails to show how YECS have failed in their legal challenges. Because GOG does not mention any of YECSs' scientific pretensions beyond literal interpretation of the bible, and because GOG fails to show a scientific argument rebutting theirs (which GOG does not mention), it also fails to show YECSs' failures in their scientific pretensions. As such, GOG is neither essential, nor sufficient in reaching the goals presented in the introduction of GOG.

Thank you.
RLBaty

Con

Not my opening statement statement:

Mangani earlier refused my entreaty that we openly, honestly negotiate the logistical details as to what issues we might discuss and how such a discussion might be most appropriately produced.

Mangani refused to engage me in that exercise and instead unilaterally set up this exercise.

In his first round posting he proposed that round 2 would be for opening statements only, no rebuttals, and then promptly violated that directive in his round two message.

I will follow Mangani's example which, as will be seen, absolves me from needing to present an "opening statement" as I note Mangani's concession of the proposition he presented for my consideration.

I wrote, rather simply and clearly in my first round message, in part:

- My acceptance of the invitation should not
- be interpreted in any way to mean that I
- endorse all that my opponent posted in his
- round 1.

and

- As I understand from the posting of this
- challenge, the proposition to be discussed
- is as follows:
-
- RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS
-
- Affirmd: Mangani
- Denied: RLBaty

and

- If that is not the proposition to be discussed here,
- then I propose that my opponent withdraw from this
- discussion and consider posting a challenge that
- actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm
- regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may
- or may not wish to discuss any such alternative
- proposition(s).

and

- For now, I will look forward to my opponent's round
- 2 "opening statement" affirming that "RLBaty's exercise
- is pointless".

What does Mangani do?

Mangani falsely claims in his "not an opening statement statement":

- (RLBaty) has accepted my Round #1 stipulations.

What followed that false claim is Mangani's implicit concession of the proposition "RLBaty's exercise is pointless".

I accept Mangani's concession of that proposition and request that he make it explicit should he return to this discussion.

Mangani also goes to considerable length to further misrepresent me, my argument, the claims I make for my argument, and its historic place in the popular public discussion of these important issues.

As I suggested in my first round message, I restate here:

- I propose that my opponent withdraw from this
- discussion and consider posting a challenge that
- actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm
- regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may
- or may not wish to discuss any such alternative
- proposition(s).

I further propose that he attempt to formulate one, legitimate, relevant proposition that he wants to affirm regarding these matters and which he might think will interest me enough to accept for discussion.

As before, I alternatively propose that Mangani come out, come clean, and openly, honestly negotiate with me regarding the details concerning the prospects for producing a more formal discussion of his problems with my argument and/or the claims I make for my argument.

Here's a suggestion and, just coincidentally, it relates to that simple, fundamental issue reflected in my recent challenge to Mangani that he has thrice declined. The machinery here now tells me that Mangani is not currently accepting challenges here.

SUGGESTION

Mangani, in his opening statement above writes, in relevant part:

- (RLBaty's) major premise is untrue...

That's been where Mangani has been floundering for quite some time now, and I remain available to engage in a more formal discussion of that fundamental issue, affirming the truth of my major premise, given the basic stipulations, if Mangani and I can work out the logistical details necessary to produce that discussion.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

Round 3, Part I, Rebuttal to Con's Opening Statement
______________________
The only argument presented by my opponent is the following:

(RLBaty's) major premise is untrue...

That's been where Mangani has been floundering for quite some time now, and I remain available to engage in a more formal discussion of that fundamental issue, affirming the truth of my major premise, given the basic stipulations, if Mangani and I can work out the logistical details necessary to produce that discussion.
-------------
Now, while my opponent clearly disagrees with my position, he does not offer why. He does not support his major premise in any way other than affirmation. Let us, again, re-examine his major premise:

IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and...

- I recognize this is a condition, but is this a condition that is possible to fulfill? There are three types of "IF" clauses: a condition possible to fulfill, a condition in theory, and a condition not possible to fulfill.

Condition I: a. Nature: Open condition, what is said in the condition is possible.
b. Time: This condition refers either to present or to future time. e.g. If he is late, we will have to go without him. If my mother knows about this, we are in serious trouble.

Does Condition (A) in the Major Premise of GOG meet the criteria for a First Conditional as a conditional clause of the premise?

No. It is not possible to determine the following from the conditional clause for it to fit the description of "possible":
What is "God?" What is "God's word (the text)?" Where does it say in "God's word" that "everything began over a period of six days?"

A conditional clause must not present more questions than it answers for it to be considered "possible." If you can't answer the question "what is God's word" by looking at a conditional clause, the conditional clause relying on "God's word" cannot be "possible" within the context of conditional clauses. My opponent will argue this is a "hypothetical conditional statement," however it doesn't fit that model either, ie. "If you ate too much, you would get fatter." This does not pose any questions you cannot answer yourself by looking at the conditional statement. Have you eaten too much? The reader knows the answer to that question. Does God's word (the text) say everything began over a period of six days? Several unanswerable or unanswered questions arise from what is said to be a conditional statement, and therefore that statement is not a valid conditional statement, rendering the premise "untrue."

IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and
- B is true, but...

IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years
- C is not quite true. The notion of "empirical evidence" is not a rational one. Just as with the problem with identifying "God" and "God's word" in A, C requires you to believe the notion of "empirical evidence" without there being such a thing. Evidence is not empirical- evidence is, well, evidence. A proper condition would say "IF (C) there is 'evidence' that some things are much older than a few thousand years.

THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some is wrong."
- Now here GOG has the exercise jump from the suggestion that YECS interpret the "text" one way, science says something else, and the conclusion reached is the interpretation is wrong. I have repeatedly shown how this logic does not follow. The text ITSELF may be wrong.

Here is the major flaw of this argument: If 'God's word (the text)' says everything began over a period of six days, and some interpret that to mean six days (24hrs. is a day... I don't know what other kind of day there is), then the interpretation by THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE WRONG. They are simply believing the literal text.

______________________

Round 3, Part II, New Counterpoints

Needless to say, GOG has major flaws. It does not establish "who or what" is God. The Major Premise cannot stand if the conditional statements are not possible, and the conclusions drawn are questionable. D is completely inconsequential to A, B, and C in the major premise. The fact that "some" misinterpret ANY text is common sense- not he conclusion of some intellectual logic exercise. The fact that D is concluded in GOG by following A and B and C proves it is not essential. Anything can be said to reach conclusion D. For example: If the Bible were translated from it's original text, and If these translations rely on individual interpretation by various scholars, then C, the interpretation of the Bible by some is wrong. This is simple common sense- again, not the conclusion of some advanced intellectual logic test.

The minor premise, it should follow, is also untrue, but relies on a bit of trickery. Let's start at the end: (D) The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

I have already shown how this conclusion can be reached through much simpler means. It does not require contemplation of the existence of God, it does not rely on identification of any body of text, and it doesn't rely on a comparison of interpretations. By mere laws of subjectivity it can be rationally deduced that the interpretation of the text, by some, is wrong. Again, this proves GOG is not essential to reaching the goals stated in the introduction to GOG.

If neither the major, nor the minor premise are true, or essential, it would also follow that the entire exercise is not sufficient in illustrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills.

In fact, even if the major and minor premise WERE true, all they would establish is that the interpretation of the text by some is true. This does not illustrate why they have failed in their scientific pretensions- this would take arguments supporting the Lambda-CDM concordance model, radiocarbon dating, etc. The arguments also do not illustrate why YECS have failed in their legal challenges- this would take actual discussion of their legal problems, a presentation of laws and cases adversely affecting the alleged legal challenges faced by YECS, and how this argument pertains to those legal challenges. This exercise also fails to demonstrate the extent of the basic critical thinking skills of YECS. It only shows their faith is based on the literal text of the bible.

GOG does not argue the literal text of the bible is wrong. GOG does not argue that the bible is "God's word," nor does it adequately establish that. GOG does not present an alternative interpretation to the literal one. GOG does not present evidence, or "empirical evidence" proving the age of anything to be greater than a few thousand years. GOG is, therefore, neither essential nor sufficient in illustrating why it is that YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, nor does it demonstrate the extent of YECSs' basic critical thinking skills.
RLBaty

Con

Mangani begins his 3rd round presentation with another false statement:

- The only argument presented by
- my opponent (RLBaty) is the following:
- ...

What he claims as an argument presented by me was not an argument.

It was a statement indicating my willingness to consider a more appropriate discussion of his problems if we could work out the logistical details necessary.

From there, Mangani goes on to further convince me that he has abandoned the proposition I agreed to discuss here and that he is not up to admitting that he cannot sustain his affirmation that:

- RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

He needs to explicitly admit to that and then consider whether he's up to coming out, coming clean and openly, honestly negotiating for a further, more formal discussion of his problems with fundamental, critical thinking skills.

Mangani has touched on "100 issues" and I can't get him to settle on one that we both might have a bonafide interest in discussing (i.e., my truth claim regarding the major premise of my argument). Mangani has already accepted my positions as to Step #1 and Step #3 of my exercise and this Step #2 issue has him blundering all over the place.

(Had Mangani been a more willing, more worthy correspondent, we might have actually worked through all of his "Gish Gallop" failings regarding this very simple exercise and the claims I make for it and my argument.)

On that one issue, which has an open, outstanding debate challenge that Mangani could accept, Mangani has thrice declined. If he doesn't like how that issue is framed there, he's welcome to come out, come clean and openly, honestly engage me in negotiating for a format designed with his specific problems in mind.

Mangani clearly fails to demonstrate an understanding of conditional statements as they relate to the issue before us.

Similarly, Mangani fails to demonstrate an understanding of the nature of stipulations and how they are used in such situations.

These and his other problems can be fully explored at such time as Mangani is willing to come out, come clean and openly, honestly negotiate for an appropriate discussion of his multitude of problems.

I would be glad to try to help Mangani with his fundamental problems on those issues and come to understand and accept my truth claim as to the major premise of my argument.

It really is quite simple as I have repeatedly explain over the last few days here on Debate.Org and, more specifically, within the last few minutes.

It is not necessary for me to establish the truth of my major premise here in order to establish that Mangani has failed to even try to sustain the affirmative:

- RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

I think Mangani, by now, has realized that that was a hopelessly lost cause as far as his ability to establish it.

Mangani's efforts in evading the proposition here is an implicit concession of the proposition I agreed to discuss here.

See my Round 1 and Round 2 postings for further details.
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Pro

Part I, Rebuttal
_____________

My opponent still refuses to stick to the format of this debate, and actually debate the issue he claims. For example, he states:

"It was a statement indicating my willingness to consider a more appropriate discussion of his problems if we could work out the logistical details necessary."
- The fact is he accepted this debate with my Round 1 written as is, yet he refuses to abide by the rules and premises presented in the debate. He hasn't even offered an alternative premise, nor has he presented any arguments. All my opponent has done is engage in attacks against my person for no rational reason within the context of this debate.

"Mangani goes on to further convince me that he has abandoned the proposition"
- I've abandoned no proposition I ever sought to undertake. I've presented my premise, and I've defended it. It is up to the judges to determine if I have done so adequately.

"Mangani has touched on "100 issues"
- I've actually not. I presented a clear premise, described exhaustively exactly what I meant, and presented my arguments.

"Mangani has already accepted my positions as to Step #1 and Step #3 of my exercise and this Step #2 issue has him blundering all over the place"
- This seems to be the issue my opponent should be debating. He admits he disagrees, but makes no effort to defend his claim.

"Mangani clearly fails to demonstrate an understanding of conditional statements as they relate to the issue before us."
- Again, something my opponent should be presenting an actual argument in. Should he decide to present an argument showing how this ad-hominem applies to my analysis of his exercise, I'm sure that would make for a lively debate.

"I would be glad to try to help Mangani with his fundamental problems on those issues and come to understand and accept my truth claim as to the major premise of my argument."
- My opponent seems to misunderstand the purpose of debate. He speaks as if he is superior, but presents no arguments to support his claim. Does his exercise meet the expectations? How would we know if he never defends it? He merely expects everyone to accept his exercise at face value, and the second you disagree that it meets it's intended function, he accuses you of not being smart enough to figure it out. By his own acclaim his exercise is a failure. If everyone who attempts his exercise finds some fault in it, and fails, and everyone is ignorant, then the exercise does not work in singling out the group he wishes to single out.

"It is not necessary for me to establish the truth of my major premise here in order to establish that Mangani has failed to even try to sustain the affirmative"
- I believe this is a question the judges will be more than eager to determine for themselves.

" RLBaty's Exercise is pointless"
- I have repeatedly shown how GOG fails to achieve it's intended results. It is, therefore, pointless.
_______________________________

Counterpoints

In the absence of a coherent argument from my opponent, please allow my arguments from the previous rounds to carry over. No rebuttal whatsoever has been presented against my arguments.

I look forward to my opponent's closing rebuttals, and to posting my closing argument. Thank you.
RLBaty

Con

My opponent, Mangani, as he has from the beginning, submits his fourth round offering with false and/or misleading claims, starting with:

- My opponent still refuses to stick to the format of this
- debate, and actually debate the issue he claims.

I am more than willing to debate the issues that represent my position and not the false and/or misleading representations of my position as my opponent, Mangani, seems determined to present here.

For instance, as I made clear in my opening round, I am accepting the negative position on the affirmative that Mangani posted at the top of this page:

- RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

Mangani has, effectively, abandoned that affirmation and refused to come out, come clean, and openly negotiate the necessary details for taking up another point of contention. He thrice explicitly denied my invitation that he take up the debate on his Step #2 problem, after we reached agreement as to Steps #1 and #3 of my exercise.

That invitation remains open for him at:

http://www.debate.org...

We can also negotiate a proposition more tailored to his specific needs if he is up to it.

Mangani added:

- The fact is he accepted this debate with my
- Round 1 written as is, yet he refuses to abide
- by the rules and premises presented in the debate.

That's false. What I did in Round One above is state, rather explicitly, in part:

- My acceptance of the invitation should not be
- interpreted in any way to mean that I endorse
- all that my opponent posted in his round 1.
-
- I believe that there are false and misleading
- claims made therein.

and

- As I understand from the posting of this challenge,
- the proposition to be discussed is as follows:
-
- RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS
-
- - Affirmd: Mangani
- - Denied: RLBaty
-
- That proposition is the one posted at the top of the challenge.
-
- If that is not the proposition to be discussed here, then I propose
- that my opponent withdraw from this discussion and consider posting
- a challenge that actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm
- regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims.
-
- I may or may not wish to discuss any such alternative proposition(s).

Mangani also now writes:

- I've abandoned no proposition I ever sought to undertake.
- I've presented my premise, and I've defended it.
- It is up to the judges to determine if I have done so adequately.

So, it appears that Mangani never sought to undertake to establish the affirmative claim shown at the top of the page here:

- RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS

That's a further implied concession by Mangani of the proposition he posted as the affirmative and which I agreed to act as a negative.

Mangani presented many other "premises" and false and/or misleading claims as he "galloped like Gish" all over the landscape.

Ride on, Mangani, ride on!

Let me know when you are ready to come out, come clean and openly and honestly negotiate for a bonafide discussion of your problems as they relate to me, my argument, and the claims I make for it.

It's not up to the judges to decide how to judge your antics here; though they, whoever they may be, are welcome to whatever opinions they may wish to form. Dare any of them wish to challenge me regarding my arguments and the claims I make for them, they also will have an open invitation to come out, come clean, and openly, honestly deal with any problems they have with such matters.

Mangani rambles on and throws in the following suggestion:

- My opponent should be presenting an actual argument.

I was under no obligation to present any rebuttal where it was clear that Mangani had offered no affirmative argument and nothing else that he claimed would lead to the conclusion that:

- RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS

I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that Mangani has, effectively, abandoned that claim from the beginning.

The debate was over before it ever got started, though the banter helps to add some additional context to the exercise which, among other things, has the effect of demonstrating that Mangani is not a worthy correspondent regarding these important public issues.

Perhaps he will repent and bring forth works meet for his repentance; perhaps not.

In closing, Mangani proposes:

- I have repeatedly shown how GOG
- fails to achieve it's intended results.
-
- It is, therefore, pointless.

Those statements are false!
Simply false!

Besides failing to do what he claimed to have done, Mangani's conclusion does not logically follow from his claim even if his first claim were to be true. Mangani can spend the rest of his life claiming he has shown that the exercise does not do something or another and he will not have shown that the exercise was pointless.

In reality, Mangani's response to the exercise makes one or more very good points that are relevant to these important public issues and the historic place my little exercise has in the popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science.

My obligation in the discussion of the issue I agreed to discuss, however, is not to establish any one point to the exercise, though that might easily be done, with or without Mangani's concession on any one point (his refusal to accept even one point would be anticipated).

No, my obligation, if we were to seriously discuss that matter, would be just as I have done already here; to simply point out that Mangani's argument, such as it is:

- DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT...
-
- ...RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS.
Debate Round No. 4
Mangani

Pro

My opponent has consistently shown his inability to defend the effectiveness of his exercise. His exercise, named "Goliath of GRAS which stands for Gene Robert Argument Supreme. His belief is that his argument, a Goliath, will stand up to any "David" presented by YECS, thus illustrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills.

His arguments have simply been that his argument is valid, and that his major premise is true. He has not argued the effectiveness of GOG in showing how YECS have ailed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, nor does GOG demonstrate the extent of their basic critical thinking skills.

You, as the judge, must determine the following from this debate:
1) Is GOG essential and/or necessary in showing that YECS have flawed logic?

- I have argued that the exercise itself embraces flawed logic. The exercise is not necessary for reaching the only conclusions reached- that some people misinterpret the bible. This is common sense, and I have shown how this is common sense. My opponent did not defend his exercise as essential or necessary in reaching the ONLY conclusion his exercise reaches. If this argument is presented to YECS, and they read the conclusion: The text is misinterpreted by some, the rational response is "Obviously." If YECS interpret the bible one way, and Mr. Baty interprets the bible another- this is exercise enough to show that the bible will be misinterpreted by some. The exercise is neither essential nor necessary in reaching this conclusion.

2) Is GOG sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic?

- No, it is not. Mr. Baty presupposes everyone will disagree with the function of his exercise... however, the exercise doesn't actually attack YECS as having flawed logic- it merely admits they interpret the bible literally. GOG does not show the bible is infallible, nor does it make this argument. GOG offers no alternative interpretation of the creation passages in the bible, and is therefore insufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic in literally interpreting the bible. Can it be shown that YECS have flawed logic? Yes. We know through scientific evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. Can this evidence be challenged? Sure it can... but in the process of challenging this evidence, YECS are much more likely to demonstrate their flawed logic than through completing GOG. GOG is not sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic.

If GOG states that it's goal is to "illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills," yet it fails in doing so, then GOG is pointless.

I rest my case.

Thank you.
RLBaty

Con

Mangani proposed that this last round should be comprised of a conclusion and a closing statement.

I will try to oblige.

CONCLUSION:

Mangani has failed to make a legitimate attempt to demonstrate that the claim at the top of this page (i.e., "RLBaty's Exercise is Pointless") is true.

It's usually not a good idea to so boldly affirm such a universal negative and Mangani has demonstrated why that is usually not a good idea. Mangani is certainly NOT UNusual regarding that issue.

That "RLBaty's exercise is pointless" is simply false.

I win!

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!
Still no "David"!

Others are welcome to draw their own conclusion about that.

CLOSING STATEMENT:

As before, Mangani has opened his fifth round with another false claim:

- (RLBaty's) arguments have simply been that
- his argument is valid, and that his major
- premise is true.

That's simple false.

There is a whole lot more to my exercise, but those two issues are typically found taking up most of the time because for years my adversaries have tried to impeach the claim that the "Goliath of GRAS" argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (that it is logically valid).

For the few who have managed to get past that step and move on, they have typically balked at the simple, logical truth of the major premise, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning.

Those are the simplest steps of the exercise. The substance of the exercise lies in the third step of the exercise and the discussion that follows.

Mangani and others here are among those who have demonstrated, establishing one or more of "points" to the exercise, that many people lack the ability to properly demonstrate they possess certain, basic critical thinking skills necessary to properly evaluating what is a rather simple, straight-forward argument dealing with an important public issue and openly, honestly discuss the ramifications of a successful completion of the exercise.

I think the wrapping up of this final round may be my last loose end at the Debate.Org venue.

Thanks for all the demonstrations and the establishment of so many important "points" regarding my exercise. As I have noted before, the exercise not just for young-earth creation-science promoters. It's quite utilitarian as the experience here has "pointed" out over and over and over again.

The light is still on for any who wish to do other than Mangani has done and are willing to come out, come clean and openly, honestly engage in a discussion of such issues of mutual interest and any continuing problems they may have regarding my argument and the claims I make for it...at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

The archives are public and you don't have to be a member to post messages there.

Mangani has been snooping around there but has refused to even post a note to let us know he had been by; as is requested on the home page. I suspect a number of others here have done likewise. It is just one other example of the extreme level of bad faith I have had to deal with regarding my misguided, critical-thinking-skills-challenged adversaries.

If you would like to post a note at my place, all you have to do is address an email as follows, replacing the (at) with @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)ahoogroups.com

See y'all there, or not!
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
I may have gotten those three message links wrong. If so, try these:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

http://groups.yahoo.com...

http://groups.yahoo.com...
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
My thanks to Mangani for his vote on the important public issue reflected in the related debate which Mangani refused three times before TSH blocked his fourth and final opportunity and, more importantly, his comments there following his votes.

I have added my response thereto at my place and so there are now three messages I have posted subsequent to TSH's failed effort regarding these matters:

My response to TSH's failed effort which so many here fell for:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
http://groups.yahoo.com...

My specific response to Mangani and his implicit concessions of defeat are noted at:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

Rebuttals can be sent to the following address, changing (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com

Otherwise, you can review the public archives at my place for a more complete record regarding these important, public issues and the failures demonstrated by Debate.Org wannabes.

Thanks for the contributions!
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
RLBaty, there is crazy, and there is completely delusional. I've just watched your amateurish exercise be dismantled rationally by me in this debate, and mathematically by another gentleman in a separate debate. You speak of credibility, but you never so much as earned any here, and you've lost much more. So you're actually in the negative as far as credibility goes... and we know your name! Hah! So you just lost yet another debate- anonimity is NOT indirectly proportional to credibility!

Get a life, bro ;)
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Mangani,

Step #2 awaits your further consideration at my place and, if you are up to it, you might try your hand at the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
http://groups.yahoo.com...

Rebuttals should be sent to the following email address, changing (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
RLBaty, what if I wrote a bible called "Young's Literal Translation", or something, and I translated the 6 days part to read "6 24hr days". Would YECS still be misinterpreting the bible? Or would they accurately be interpreting my bible, which I happened to misinterpret when translating?
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
Why thank you, kind sir...
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
Likespace, I think you fell for his trap. The title of a debate is not it's resolution- that is to be determined by the person posting the debate to begin with. My Round 1 was posted BEFORE he accepted the debate. Furthermore, if you read the debate, I have, indeed, shown his exercise to be pointless. The premise was pulled from the introduction written BY HIM in his own exercise. My resolution stated that RLBaty's exercise (paraphrasing) does not illustrate YECS flawed logic. If it does not do what it is intended to do, it is pointless (this is in my closing argument).
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
So, to be clear:

By DDO's rules (voting) you have lost (your debates)
By the rules of general interaction (people in discussion) you have lost (no one thinks you have any kind of useful point to make)
By the rules of "historic" (i.e. memorable and interesting to the public at large and/or having an impact on the course of future events) you have lost.
By the rules of "successful" you have lost (in that you have not won anything, so can hardly be called "successful".

Between your ad hominems (the relative anonymity of the folks on this site has literally nothing to do with whether their points are valid, yet you keep bringing it up as thought it has any bearing on the discussion), and your constant attempts to pull people to "your place", it's clear that you are a fool.

Your bland assertions are tiresome. You are a liar and a blowhard. The shenanigans I called in http://www.debate.org...
stands.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
No, of course that is not what I mean but that is the sort of typically false and/or misrepresentation I have come to expect from the anonymous snipers that have gathered round to watch me, again, put on a successful, historic show.

I came to Debate.Org
I played its games.
I won.

Some there don't think so, and that's expected.

Folks wishing to now come out, come clean, and openly and honestly pursue such problems as they continue to have on these simple matters, are welcome at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
By that, you mean I completely dismantled your arguments, and you disappeared without a rebuttal. It's all there, in the comments section of that link, for anyone to see.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
ManganiRLBatyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Acceptance of the debate means acceptance of the resolution as stated--"Con's position: RLBaty's YECS exercise is essential, and/or sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic." Arguments to Pro for making has case, unrebutted. *** Conduct: (revised) I feel the title and resolution should match as closely as possible, especially when the title is personal. This would lead me to award conduct to RLBaty. However, RLBaty did not really debate the topic he agreed to debate, which would lead me to award conduct to Mangani. I'v decided to leave this point tied.