Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Evolution: 3 vs 3 debate.

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 11:00:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wanna do an evolution debate where 3 people debating for evolution go against 3 people debating for creation. When I say creation, I mean the idea that a designer made the earth in more or less its current form, in a form that discounts the theory of evolution. This debate has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, origin or the earth, or the origin of life, only with the evolution of life from a common ancestor vs. the individual creation of modern species.

The evolutionists will try to defend the theory of evolution, while creationists will try to defend the idea of individual creation.

I will be the first debater for evolution. I will be waiting for two more evolution debaters. I will also be waiting for 3 creationist debaters.

Rules? Make sure that we are not all focusing on one person, and make sure that everyone is involved in the debate. Try to respond to multiple people over the course of the debate. I am the judge, if you are doing a horrible job or are trolling, or are not posting, you are fired ( I will give lots of nice warnings). I won't be really strict with the whole doing about doing a bad job part. Also I will privately message you if I think you need to adjust the way you are doing things.

If you want to debate for the evolutionist or creationist position, post your acceptance in this thread, and maybe post your arguments for your position to make it more likely that you will be picked. I will be messaging you when the debate starts.

If you want out of this debate, just message me so I won't pester you to post. It won't be a big deal. This is just a fun informal debate.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 11:30:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would only accept if it has a definite end parameter, if I could somehow know my companion debaters were knowledgeable in this subject, and you shifted the burden of proof a little. Shift it to evolutionists by having common descent not being taught in schools. If creationists attempt to fulfill their current burden of proof we are looking at a debate with too wide range of topics.
Pacey5714
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2011 10:25:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you could get people apart of it. Sure I would participate. I would argue the overwhelming evidence for evolution along with the other to participants.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 11:00:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I wanna do an evolution debate where 3 people debating for evolution go against 3 people debating for creation. When I say creation, I mean the idea that a designer made the earth in more or less its current form, in a form that discounts the theory of evolution. This debate has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, origin or the earth, or the origin of life, only with the evolution of life from a common ancestor vs. the individual creation of modern species.

The evolutionists will try to defend the theory of evolution, while creationists will try to defend the idea of individual creation.

I will be the first debater for evolution. I will be waiting for two more evolution debaters. I will also be waiting for 3 creationist debaters.

Rules? Make sure that we are not all focusing on one person, and make sure that everyone is involved in the debate. Try to respond to multiple people over the course of the debate. I am the judge, if you are doing a horrible job or are trolling, or are not posting, you are fired ( I will give lots of nice warnings). I won't be really strict with the whole doing about doing a bad job part. Also I will privately message you if I think you need to adjust the way you are doing things.

If you want to debate for the evolutionist or creationist position, post your acceptance in this thread, and maybe post your arguments for your position to make it more likely that you will be picked. I will be messaging you when the debate starts.

If you want out of this debate, just message me so I won't pester you to post. It won't be a big deal. This is just a fun informal debate.

reword it as darwinism or I will vote creationist simply for the poor resolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 10:02:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 9:58:23 PM, Willoweed wrote:
evolution is a proven fact any who doesnt agree is a ingorant moron

I agree with evolution, but I disagree with Darwinism. I also disagree with creationism and I'm on the fence in regards to inteligent design.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 2:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 9:58:23 PM, Willoweed wrote:
evolution is a proven fact any who doesnt agree is a ingorant moron

When anyone states that another person or group is an ignorant moron they should be careful to examine the way they inform the other person or group. Specifically, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should be used as commonly used in the language chosen as the medium. More specifically, the word at the beginning of the sentence should be capitalized, using periods, or other punctuation to prevent run-on-sentences, using apostrophes in contractions, spelling the word ignorant correctly especially if used derogatorily, and finally the correct punctuation, such as a period, at the end of the sentence.

Doing this will present the spokesperson as a person who is not a ignorant moron themselves. Calling someone any derogatory name which name fits the "caller's" description may be called hypocritical by bystanders or the person or group receiving the sentence.

In certain circles it may not be deemed as hypocritical but as sarcasm. In this instance it will make the spokesperson look like they agree with the target of the sentence. This will negatively benefit the spokesperson as this is not the intended result of the sentence.

In yet other circles, specifically the circle of ignorant morons, one would look quite intelligent and educated for calling others what they indeed are for fear being what they are. If these people are seen supporting you the validity of your statement or statements may drastically decrease.

Also, presenting derogatory sentences correctly prevents bystanders, or perhaps the target themselves, from over analyzing the sentence to make the spokesperson look like an ignorant moron.

However, on the subject of over analyzing there is no such thing. Over analyzing depicts the idea of analyzing too much, however analyzing is very beneficial for understanding and comprehension. There is a such thing as analyzing incorrectly which of course is possible which may be done often when calling a person or group ignorant morons.

Also, indecisiveness may be mistaken for over analyzing. Teetering on two results excessively may squander time. Such an event may be done for attention or show lack of intelligence.

Over analyzing is synonymous to over thinking. Synonyms sometimes are extremely useful to better convey the message intended to be received. Speaking of word usage, the terms ignorant and moron may have been better traded for mo precise or accurate terms.

Ignorant - Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Moron - a stupid person

Stupid - lacking intelligence or common sense

Ignorance is not necessarily the fault of the ignorant, as ignorance is the result of the sate of being uneducated. One who has been educated but may still show sign of ignorance is stupid, as they lack the intelligence to comprehend the material to be educated on.

From here it seems it is mutually exclusive to be ignorant and stupid, or moronic if you will. Thus better terminology should have been applied to convey the message intended.

In some cases it is possible to interpret intent, however without context it becomes a difficult or in this case an impossible task. Lack of context can be a characteristic from an "ignorant moron."

Isn't using an ignorant moron hypocritical as explained earlier why it is not possible? Not so, as notice the quotation marks around it. Also sarcasm also plays a role in the interpretation of words.

It is also important to point out that disagreeing with a scientific principle does not mean one is either uneducated or a moron. Scientific reasoning is based on indirect reasoning where you can never be sure of anything. Disagreeing with such scientifically is also possible if adequate or an abundance amount of evidence supports your conclusion. This is the case in creationism.

However, Biblical Creationism is often misrepresented to the scientific community or the public. Phrases such as "religion versus reason" implies the victor. It conveys to the public that the "religious" side is not rational or fund by reason.

Not only is Biblical Creationism misrepresented in that way but by the spokespersons of the idea. Often spokespersons may appear as uneducated because they do no fully comprehend perhaps either side of the debate.

Much of the time ad hominens are used against people who support Biblical Creationism. Attacks on character are extremely common, including the phrase "ignorant morons".

Another logical fallacy is applying one side's arguments to ridiculous extremes and disproving an extreme. This is often the case of Biblical Creationism. Since advocates of Biblical Creation reject one scientific "theory" this notion is applied to all scientific applications such as gravity, computers, or the like. This logical fallacy strikes a special nerve and is a clear sign of one being desperate for attacks.

From looking at this it may appear if this speaker meant this sentence in a derogatory manner, then he may have been misguided or simply didn't understand. However, being optimistic and assuming he meant good, then we shall attempt to interpret sentence from this view, despite lacking sufficient context to understand the intent from his view without making this optimistic assumption.

The author of the quoted sentence may have meant any one of the following sentences, or a similar one.

1. Evolution is not a fact and any who agree is a brilliant genius.
2. Biblical Creationism is a fact and any who disagrees is ignorant or suppressive of the evidence.
3. Common descent is false and any who agrees is educated.
4. The Bible is without error and any who disagree are not believers of it.

From each of these four we can dissect them and combine them in different ways. Such a possibility is "Evolution is false and any who disagrees is not educated." AS you can see there are numerous possibilities, but with the assumption we can see the intent is pretty solid.

However, this is the point when you ask for clarification. So I ask of you, may you elaborate?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 1:23:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would go as the second evolution debater against creation, if I knew the motion's wording specifically.

i.e. "This house believes that creation is, scientifically, false."

Where creation is 'creationism', or the belief that a deity created everything, and species were formed by their divine hand, and not through evolutionary techniques.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 3:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 2:26:20 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
At 12/1/2011 9:58:23 PM, Willoweed wrote:
evolution is a proven fact any who doesnt agree is a ingorant moron

When anyone states that another person or group is an ignorant moron they should be careful to examine the way they inform the other person or group. Specifically, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should be used as commonly used in the language chosen as the medium. More specifically, the word at the beginning of the sentence should be capitalized, using periods, or other punctuation to prevent run-on-sentences, using apostrophes in contractions, spelling the word ignorant correctly especially if used derogatorily, and finally the correct punctuation, such as a period, at the end of the sentence.

Doing this will present the spokesperson as a person who is not a ignorant moron themselves. Calling someone any derogatory name which name fits the "caller's" description may be called hypocritical by bystanders or the person or group receiving the sentence.

In certain circles it may not be deemed as hypocritical but as sarcasm. In this instance it will make the spokesperson look like they agree with the target of the sentence. This will negatively benefit the spokesperson as this is not the intended result of the sentence.

In yet other circles, specifically the circle of ignorant morons, one would look quite intelligent and educated for calling others what they indeed are for fear being what they are. If these people are seen supporting you the validity of your statement or statements may drastically decrease.

Also, presenting derogatory sentences correctly prevents bystanders, or perhaps the target themselves, from over analyzing the sentence to make the spokesperson look like an ignorant moron.

However, on the subject of over analyzing there is no such thing. Over analyzing depicts the idea of analyzing too much, however analyzing is very beneficial for understanding and comprehension. There is a such thing as analyzing incorrectly which of course is possible which may be done often when calling a person or group ignorant morons.

Also, indecisiveness may be mistaken for over analyzing. Teetering on two results excessively may squander time. Such an event may be done for attention or show lack of intelligence.

Over analyzing is synonymous to over thinking. Synonyms sometimes are extremely useful to better convey the message intended to be received. Speaking of word usage, the terms ignorant and moron may have been better traded for mo precise or accurate terms.

Ignorant - Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Moron - a stupid person

Stupid - lacking intelligence or common sense

Ignorance is not necessarily the fault of the ignorant, as ignorance is the result of the sate of being uneducated. One who has been educated but may still show sign of ignorance is stupid, as they lack the intelligence to comprehend the material to be educated on.

From here it seems it is mutually exclusive to be ignorant and stupid, or moronic if you will. Thus better terminology should have been applied to convey the message intended.

In some cases it is possible to interpret intent, however without context it becomes a difficult or in this case an impossible task. Lack of context can be a characteristic from an "ignorant moron."

Isn't using an ignorant moron hypocritical as explained earlier why it is not possible? Not so, as notice the quotation marks around it. Also sarcasm also plays a role in the interpretation of words.

It is also important to point out that disagreeing with a scientific principle does not mean one is either uneducated or a moron. Scientific reasoning is based on indirect reasoning where you can never be sure of anything. Disagreeing with such scientifically is also possible if adequate or an abundance amount of evidence supports your conclusion. This is the case in creationism.

However, Biblical Creationism is often misrepresented to the scientific community or the public. Phrases such as "religion versus reason" implies the victor. It conveys to the public that the "religious" side is not rational or fund by reason.

Not only is Biblical Creationism misrepresented in that way but by the spokespersons of the idea. Often spokespersons may appear as uneducated because they do no fully comprehend perhaps either side of the debate.

Much of the time ad hominens are used against people who support Biblical Creationism. Attacks on character are extremely common, including the phrase "ignorant morons".

Another logical fallacy is applying one side's arguments to ridiculous extremes and disproving an extreme. This is often the case of Biblical Creationism. Since advocates of Biblical Creation reject one scientific "theory" this notion is applied to all scientific applications such as gravity, computers, or the like. This logical fallacy strikes a special nerve and is a clear sign of one being desperate for attacks.

From looking at this it may appear if this speaker meant this sentence in a derogatory manner, then he may have been misguided or simply didn't understand. However, being optimistic and assuming he meant good, then we shall attempt to interpret sentence from this view, despite lacking sufficient context to understand the intent from his view without making this optimistic assumption.

The author of the quoted sentence may have meant any one of the following sentences, or a similar one.

1. Evolution is not a fact and any who agree is a brilliant genius.
2. Biblical Creationism is a fact and any who disagrees is ignorant or suppressive of the evidence.
3. Common descent is false and any who agrees is educated.
4. The Bible is without error and any who disagree are not believers of it.

From each of these four we can dissect them and combine them in different ways. Such a possibility is "Evolution is false and any who disagrees is not educated." AS you can see there are numerous possibilities, but with the assumption we can see the intent is pretty solid.

However, this is the point when you ask for clarification. So I ask of you, may you elaborate?

This is a glorious post that in my head was narrated by the great Hugo Weaving.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/6/2011 3:40:29 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/3/2011 2:26:20 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
At 12/1/2011 9:58:23 PM, Willoweed wrote:
evolution is a proven fact any who doesnt agree is a ingorant moron

When anyone states that another person or group is an ignorant moron they should be careful to examine the way they inform the other person or group. Specifically, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should be used as commonly used in the language chosen as the medium. More specifically, the word at the beginning of the sentence should be capitalized, using periods, or other punctuation to prevent run-on-sentences, using apostrophes in contractions, spelling the word ignorant correctly especially if used derogatorily, and finally the correct punctuation, such as a period, at the end of the sentence.

Doing this will present the spokesperson as a person who is not a ignorant moron themselves. Calling someone any derogatory name which name fits the "caller's" description may be called hypocritical by bystanders or the person or group receiving the sentence.

In certain circles it may not be deemed as hypocritical but as sarcasm. In this instance it will make the spokesperson look like they agree with the target of the sentence. This will negatively benefit the spokesperson as this is not the intended result of the sentence.

In yet other circles, specifically the circle of ignorant morons, one would look quite intelligent and educated for calling others what they indeed are for fear being what they are. If these people are seen supporting you the validity of your statement or statements may drastically decrease.

Also, presenting derogatory sentences correctly prevents bystanders, or perhaps the target themselves, from over analyzing the sentence to make the spokesperson look like an ignorant moron.

However, on the subject of over analyzing there is no such thing. Over analyzing depicts the idea of analyzing too much, however analyzing is very beneficial for understanding and comprehension. There is a such thing as analyzing incorrectly which of course is possible which may be done often when calling a person or group ignorant morons.

Also, indecisiveness may be mistaken for over analyzing. Teetering on two results excessively may squander time. Such an event may be done for attention or show lack of intelligence.

Over analyzing is synonymous to over thinking. Synonyms sometimes are extremely useful to better convey the message intended to be received. Speaking of word usage, the terms ignorant and moron may have been better traded for mo precise or accurate terms.

Ignorant - Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Moron - a stupid person

Stupid - lacking intelligence or common sense

Ignorance is not necessarily the fault of the ignorant, as ignorance is the result of the sate of being uneducated. One who has been educated but may still show sign of ignorance is stupid, as they lack the intelligence to comprehend the material to be educated on.

From here it seems it is mutually exclusive to be ignorant and stupid, or moronic if you will. Thus better terminology should have been applied to convey the message intended.

In some cases it is possible to interpret intent, however without context it becomes a difficult or in this case an impossible task. Lack of context can be a characteristic from an "ignorant moron."

Isn't using an ignorant moron hypocritical as explained earlier why it is not possible? Not so, as notice the quotation marks around it. Also sarcasm also plays a role in the interpretation of words.

It is also important to point out that disagreeing with a scientific principle does not mean one is either uneducated or a moron. Scientific reasoning is based on indirect reasoning where you can never be sure of anything. Disagreeing with such scientifically is also possible if adequate or an abundance amount of evidence supports your conclusion. This is the case in creationism.

However, Biblical Creationism is often misrepresented to the scientific community or the public. Phrases such as "religion versus reason" implies the victor. It conveys to the public that the "religious" side is not rational or fund by reason.

Not only is Biblical Creationism misrepresented in that way but by the spokespersons of the idea. Often spokespersons may appear as uneducated because they do no fully comprehend perhaps either side of the debate.

Much of the time ad hominens are used against people who support Biblical Creationism. Attacks on character are extremely common, including the phrase "ignorant morons".

Another logical fallacy is applying one side's arguments to ridiculous extremes and disproving an extreme. This is often the case of Biblical Creationism. Since advocates of Biblical Creation reject one scientific "theory" this notion is applied to all scientific applications such as gravity, computers, or the like. This logical fallacy strikes a special nerve and is a clear sign of one being desperate for attacks.

From looking at this it may appear if this speaker meant this sentence in a derogatory manner, then he may have been misguided or simply didn't understand. However, being optimistic and assuming he meant good, then we shall attempt to interpret sentence from this view, despite lacking sufficient context to understand the intent from his view without making this optimistic assumption.

The author of the quoted sentence may have meant any one of the following sentences, or a similar one.

1. Evolution is not a fact and any who agree is a brilliant genius.
2. Biblical Creationism is a fact and any who disagrees is ignorant or suppressive of the evidence.
3. Common descent is false and any who agrees is educated.
4. The Bible is without error and any who disagree are not believers of it.

From each of these four we can dissect them and combine them in different ways. Such a possibility is "Evolution is false and any who disagrees is not educated." AS you can see there are numerous possibilities, but with the assumption we can see the intent is pretty solid.

However, this is the point when you ask for clarification. So I ask of you, may you elaborate?

This is a glorious post that in my head was narrated by the great Hugo Weaving.

TL:DR

D
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...