Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

One God debate

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
OK, I'm going to be taking a hiatus from debates on the resolution "God exists". But before that, I'd like to have two God debates. One of them I've already planned to have with usernamesareannoying as Pro, so there is *one* spot left for me debating someone on the resolution "God likely exists", as Con.

NOTE

Note that I'd prefer to debate a debater who *does* believe that God exists, i.e. a theist/deist&etc.

DEFINITIONS

First, applicants can feel free to define the terms in the thread, and I'll pick a good definition as long as it's based on what I wanted, but the suggested definitions are below:

God -- the definition is borrowed from n7: "The sentient necessary eternal (has always existed and held his properties) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe."

Likely -- "Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell."

Exist -- "Have objective reality."

RULES

*I* will instigate the debate. The basic rules will be as follows:

1. No forfeits
2. All arguments must be within the debate, while sources can be in a sourced link or within the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution), or "theory" (i.e. making objections as to the procedure or content of the resolution, rules or definitions based on consequences)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

STRUCTURE

R1. Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case
R4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro waives

By the above structure, both sides get equal constructive rounds, rebuttal rounds, and defense rounds, so there's no contender advantage, or last-speaker advantage.

The format will be: 72h/round, 10k characters/round, minimum voting Elo 2k or judge voting (contender's choice).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 4:33:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, I'm going to be taking a hiatus from debates on the resolution "God exists". But before that, I'd like to have two God debates. One of them I've already planned to have with usernamesareannoying as Pro, so there is *one* spot left for me debating someone on the resolution "God likely exists", as Con.

NOTE

Note that I'd prefer to debate a debater who *does* believe that God exists, i.e. a theist/deist&etc.

DEFINITIONS

First, applicants can feel free to define the terms in the thread, and I'll pick a good definition as long as it's based on what I wanted, but the suggested definitions are below:

God -- the definition is borrowed from n7: "The sentient necessary eternal (has always existed and held his properties) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe."

Likely -- "Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell."

Exist -- "Have objective reality."

RULES

*I* will instigate the debate. The basic rules will be as follows:

1. No forfeits
2. All arguments must be within the debate, while sources can be in a sourced link or within the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution), or "theory" (i.e. making objections as to the procedure or content of the resolution, rules or definitions based on consequences)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

STRUCTURE

R1. Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case
R4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro waives

By the above structure, both sides get equal constructive rounds, rebuttal rounds, and defense rounds, so there's no contender advantage, or last-speaker advantage.

The format will be: 72h/round, 10k characters/round, minimum voting Elo 2k or judge voting (contender's choice).

Hmmmmmmmm
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 8:01:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 6:30:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
You do God debates?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

D:

He's done a ton of them lately, lol.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 6:30:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
You do God debates?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

D:

It's been his focus and pretty much his specialty for a while...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 10:48:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 8:01:16 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/6/2015 6:30:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
You do God debates?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

D:

He's done a ton of them lately, lol.

She was sarcastic, lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:06:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 10:48:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/6/2015 8:01:16 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/6/2015 6:30:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/6/2015 9:09:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
You do God debates?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

D:

He's done a ton of them lately, lol.

She was sarcastic, lol.

y she no put /s