Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

3v3 debate proposal: "Did Jesus exist?"

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.

It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:04:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.

It really would be, but I have learned that this is not a topic that can be covered fully in a short period. There are MANY documents that can be considered, many of which just include vague references, and when one document is refuted by either side they could easily bring in 5 more. It makes this a very difficult topic if you are not going to invest any time into it.

This can be changed if enough people feel the same way you do, but I feel this is appropriate for this topic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:17:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:04:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.

It really would be, but I have learned that this is not a topic that can be covered fully in a short period. There are MANY documents that can be considered, many of which just include vague references, and when one document is refuted by either side they could easily bring in 5 more. It makes this a very difficult topic if you are not going to invest any time into it.

This can be changed if enough people feel the same way you do, but I feel this is appropriate for this topic.

True. The problem being, that this is your realm of active study, for the rest of us this is a side project... It isn't just the time in the debate, it is the massive amount of pre-research necessary to be properly prepared...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:24:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:17:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:04:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.

It really would be, but I have learned that this is not a topic that can be covered fully in a short period. There are MANY documents that can be considered, many of which just include vague references, and when one document is refuted by either side they could easily bring in 5 more. It makes this a very difficult topic if you are not going to invest any time into it.

This can be changed if enough people feel the same way you do, but I feel this is appropriate for this topic.

True. The problem being, that this is your realm of active study, for the rest of us this is a side project... It isn't just the time in the debate, it is the massive amount of pre-research necessary to be properly prepared...

While it is true that I do have an advantage over most people as I spend a lot of time studying this topic, I think that it can be, somewhat, evened out.
There are very few scholars who have published anything in favor of my position (I know of 7 modern ones off the top of my head, 3 of which focus on Christianity NT and the other 4 on Judaism and OT).
It wouldn't be that hard for anyone that takes the Pro side to find studies that would help them.
While it is true that that alone would probably not close the gap entirely, it is still useful.
I would also set it up so only the person on the Pro side who the team agrees would be best at arguing it would go up against me (as I assume that no one else on the Con side would have this field as an active study), and the other 2 match-ups would be random.

It is, ultimately, your choice and the choice of anyone else. I just don't think it is nearly as settled of an issue as you think (I am, afterall, only a 2nd year in college taking an extreme minority position).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:33:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:24:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:17:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:04:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.

It really would be, but I have learned that this is not a topic that can be covered fully in a short period. There are MANY documents that can be considered, many of which just include vague references, and when one document is refuted by either side they could easily bring in 5 more. It makes this a very difficult topic if you are not going to invest any time into it.

This can be changed if enough people feel the same way you do, but I feel this is appropriate for this topic.

True. The problem being, that this is your realm of active study, for the rest of us this is a side project... It isn't just the time in the debate, it is the massive amount of pre-research necessary to be properly prepared...

While it is true that I do have an advantage over most people as I spend a lot of time studying this topic, I think that it can be, somewhat, evened out.
There are very few scholars who have published anything in favor of my position (I know of 7 modern ones off the top of my head, 3 of which focus on Christianity NT and the other 4 on Judaism and OT).
It wouldn't be that hard for anyone that takes the Pro side to find studies that would help them.
While it is true that that alone would probably not close the gap entirely, it is still useful.
I would also set it up so only the person on the Pro side who the team agrees would be best at arguing it would go up against me (as I assume that no one else on the Con side would have this field as an active study), and the other 2 match-ups would be random.

It is, ultimately, your choice and the choice of anyone else. I just don't think it is nearly as settled of an issue as you think (I am, afterall, only a 2nd year in college taking an extreme minority position).

Oh I'm in full agreement, and I already know which argument I would like to try to debate - one never fully grows to know a topic until they are forced to present it to others.

If I lose my Shroud debate in the spring tourney I might have time to take you up on this. Which reminds me I should open a shroud thread in here, it would make for a lively discussion. The only problem being that I would be swamped with more posts that I would have time to respond to.
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:36:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1) Kiri (Nuetral/Non-Christain Denomination)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.
#Don'tlookatDATXDUDE'sprofilebecauseyoureyeswillexplode ~ Petfish
#Treebrokethechurchbells ~ Discipulus_Didicit
Don't quote me ~fire_wings
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig. ~Seventh
Yes ~Vaarka
No ~Rosalie
Ya clown ~Solon
OSU! ~Vaarka
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:44:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1) Skepticalone - Pro/non-believer.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.

Wow, I surprised you're on the mythicist side since, from my understanding, that is a minority view. This should be an interesting debate! Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to debate so I'll resign myself to judge if you'll have me!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:45:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:33:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:24:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:17:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:04:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
It is interesting. And an area that is not within my core strength, so it might be worth doing to beef that up. That being said it would be an enormous investment in time. Especially for 5x10,000!! I'll let you know.

It really would be, but I have learned that this is not a topic that can be covered fully in a short period. There are MANY documents that can be considered, many of which just include vague references, and when one document is refuted by either side they could easily bring in 5 more. It makes this a very difficult topic if you are not going to invest any time into it.

This can be changed if enough people feel the same way you do, but I feel this is appropriate for this topic.

True. The problem being, that this is your realm of active study, for the rest of us this is a side project... It isn't just the time in the debate, it is the massive amount of pre-research necessary to be properly prepared...

While it is true that I do have an advantage over most people as I spend a lot of time studying this topic, I think that it can be, somewhat, evened out.
There are very few scholars who have published anything in favor of my position (I know of 7 modern ones off the top of my head, 3 of which focus on Christianity NT and the other 4 on Judaism and OT).
It wouldn't be that hard for anyone that takes the Pro side to find studies that would help them.
While it is true that that alone would probably not close the gap entirely, it is still useful.
I would also set it up so only the person on the Pro side who the team agrees would be best at arguing it would go up against me (as I assume that no one else on the Con side would have this field as an active study), and the other 2 match-ups would be random.

It is, ultimately, your choice and the choice of anyone else. I just don't think it is nearly as settled of an issue as you think (I am, afterall, only a 2nd year in college taking an extreme minority position).

Oh I'm in full agreement, and I already know which argument I would like to try to debate - one never fully grows to know a topic until they are forced to present it to others.

If I lose my Shroud debate in the spring tourney I might have time to take you up on this. Which reminds me I should open a shroud thread in here, it would make for a lively discussion. The only problem being that I would be swamped with more posts that I would have time to respond to.

I wouldn't post it here, as it would be trampled on immediately by idiots and trolls.
This forums quality only ever seems to go down, but since hardly any of those people debate or vote, I am able to post stuff like this here.

Instead, I would head over to r/AcademicBiblical
You will get trampled on, I have as well, but at least it will usually be by people who actually know what they are talking about.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:47:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:44:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Wow, I surprised you're on the mythicist side since, from my understanding, that is a minority view.

Oh, it is an extreme minority.
Personally, I am more agnostic than mythicist.
In my view of early Christianity, I can see where a historical Jesus could fit in, I just don't think that a historical Jesus is necessary, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, I get rid of the unnecessary assumption.
I will, of course, take a harder stance on the debate than I would through casual discussion.

This should be an interesting debate! Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to debate so I'll resign myself to judge if you'll have me!

Great!
7 judges to go, 5 debaters left to find...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
fire_wings
Posts: 5,555
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:58:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
l WILL BE A JUDGE. HOWEVER, IN YOUR POSITION, THIS CAN MEAN THAT IF YOUR POSITION LOSES ALL DEBATES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE WINS, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME POINTS. I RECOMMEND 1 FOR LOSING, 0 FOR TIE, AND 2 FOR WINNING. HOWEVER, I WILL BE A JUDGE.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:07:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:58:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
l WILL BE A JUDGE. HOWEVER, IN YOUR POSITION, THIS CAN MEAN THAT IF YOUR POSITION LOSES ALL DEBATES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE WINS, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME POINTS. I RECOMMEND 1 FOR LOSING, 0 FOR TIE, AND 2 FOR WINNING. HOWEVER, I WILL BE A JUDGE.

no, the loss is -1 (maybe you didn't see the "-")
If TEAM CON losses all three it will be TC -3v3 TP
If TEAM CON losses 2 and ties one it will be TC -2v2 TP
If TEAM CON losses 1 and ties 2 then it will be TC -1v1 TP
If TEAM CON wins one and loses one it will be TC 0v0 TP
If TEAM CON ties all debates it will be TC 0v0 TP
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:14:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:58:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
l WILL BE A JUDGE. HOWEVER, IN YOUR POSITION, THIS CAN MEAN THAT IF YOUR POSITION LOSES ALL DEBATES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE WINS, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME POINTS. I RECOMMEND 1 FOR LOSING, 0 FOR TIE, AND 2 FOR WINNING. HOWEVER, I WILL BE A JUDGE.

Also, read the OP. You have not met the requirements of a judge yet.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
fire_wings
Posts: 5,555
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:14:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:58:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
l WILL BE A JUDGE. HOWEVER, IN YOUR POSITION, THIS CAN MEAN THAT IF YOUR POSITION LOSES ALL DEBATES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE WINS, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME POINTS. I RECOMMEND 1 FOR LOSING, 0 FOR TIE, AND 2 FOR WINNING. HOWEVER, I WILL BE A JUDGE.

Also, read the OP. You have not met the requirements of a judge yet.

where is the op
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:26:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:15:30 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 4/27/2016 7:14:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 6:58:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
l WILL BE A JUDGE. HOWEVER, IN YOUR POSITION, THIS CAN MEAN THAT IF YOUR POSITION LOSES ALL DEBATES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE WINS, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME POINTS. I RECOMMEND 1 FOR LOSING, 0 FOR TIE, AND 2 FOR WINNING. HOWEVER, I WILL BE A JUDGE.

Also, read the OP. You have not met the requirements of a judge yet.

where is the op

OP=Original Post...

I will quote the relevant part.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:55:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:35:22 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I'll judge.

Can you please provide this information?

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:00:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:55:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 7:35:22 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I'll judge.

Can you please provide this information?

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

I'm don't have a strong opinion on the topic (which I'm hopping will change after reading the debate), though I'll probably say that I'm leaning sightly towards the Pro position.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:05:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Current sign-up sheet:
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1) ?Geogeer? (maybe)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1) Kiri (Nuetral/Non-Christain Denomination)
2) Skepticalone - Pro/non-believer.
3) famousdebater - Pro?/agnostic
4) ?fire_wings? (maybe)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Surprisingly getting more judges than debaters.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:03:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.

This looks like a great debate.
I think you structured it in an organized and impartial manner.

I wish everyone a wonderful illuminating civil conversation. May you, your side and the opposing team help clarify the topic.

Do look forward to it.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:23:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:05:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Current sign-up sheet:
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1) ?Geogeer? (maybe)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1) Kiri (Nuetral/Non-Christain Denomination)
2) Skepticalone - Pro/non-believer.
3) famousdebater - Pro?/agnostic
4) ?fire_wings? (maybe)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Surprisingly getting more judges than debaters.

When is this debate going to happen? Do I have enough time to get my doctorate in History if I start now? ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:34:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:05:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Current sign-up sheet:
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1) ?Geogeer? (maybe)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1) Kiri (Nuetral/Non-Christain Denomination)
2) Skepticalone - Pro/non-believer.
3) famousdebater - Pro?/agnostic
4) ?fire_wings? (maybe)
5) N7 - Neutral/ Agnostic Atheist
6)
7)
8)
9)

Surprisingly getting more judges than debaters.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:03:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 11:23:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
When is this debate going to happen? Do I have enough time to get my doctorate in History if I start now? ;-)

I am sure you can find an online "university" that can give you a "PhD" in a few days that is of equal worth as "Dr." Kent Hovind's.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:03:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:14:55 PM, Hayd wrote:
/in for judging

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:37:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
1) Kiri (Nuetral/Non-Christain Denomination)
2) Skepticalone - Pro/non-believer.
3) famousdebater - Pro?/agnostic
4) ?fire_wings? (maybe)
5) N7 - Neutral/ Agnostic Atheist
6) Tejretics - Neutral/Agnostic Atheist
7)
8)
9)
"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
Kilk1
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:06:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
n7 sent me a link to this debate proposal. I wish I could join in, but I'm going to be too busy right now. I would like to debate you, SNP1, in the future, though.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:08:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 5:48:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One of the first debates I had on this site was part of a team debate on this topic, and I am wanting to do this debate again (now that my views have changed, though my position has not).

While my team did technically win, it was not the win I was hoping for (two debates were won via forfeitures by the other side, the other was a tie).

The resolution of the debate(s)
There existed a historical figure named Jesus ~2000 years ago that is the figurehead/started the religion now known as Christianity.

The debate(s) will consist of 5 rounds, 10,000 characters allowed per round.
First round is acceptance only.
No rebuttals in round 2 (only present a positive case).
No new arguments in round 5.
Burden of Proof is shared.
NO FORFEITURES.

This will not be one debate where three people work together to make each round, this will be 3 entirely separate debates. The winner of this team debate is the team with the most "points".
Loss=-1 point.
Tie-0 points.
Win=1 point.

Voting will be judge based. There will be 3 judges for each debate, and no judge can be judging for multiple debates. This means there will be a total of 9 judges.

To all who wish to be a judge, in order to try and make it so the least bias can slip in I am asking you to include next to your name on the sign-up if you already take a Pro or Con position on the subject and your religious views (if applicable). If possible, there will be no debate where all 3 judges are Pro and Christian or Con and atheist (or anything else that might lead to biased judging).

Now, if you wish to participate, here are the sign-ups.
TEAM CON (Jesus Mythicists)
1) SNP1
2)
3)

TEAM PRO (Jesus Historicits)
1)
2)
3)

JUDGES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Once all the positions are filled there will be a group PM sent out for us to be able to find out when this will be started and any other details not decided before then.

It will, as has often been the case with me, turn into a debate over the authorship and dating of the NT books, particularly the gospel accounts because a major tenet (the major tenet, maybe) of the "Jesus did not exist" position will be "No Eyewitness Accounts". They'll make that assertion in their opening statement.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:24:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:08:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
It will, as has often been the case with me, turn into a debate over the authorship and dating of the NT books, particularly the gospel accounts because a major tenet (the major tenet, maybe) of the "Jesus did not exist" position will be "No Eyewitness Accounts". They'll make that assertion in their opening statement.

This is one of the reasons it is 5 rounds of 10,000 characters each.
One is justified by using the consensus view without need of much argumentation for those dates, but if you wish to argue based on non-consensus dates (which I am also planning) then there should be enough space to be able to give enough argumentation in favor of your dates.

I do have to stress that this debate is technically a historical debate, and thus you must use proper historical methodology.
If you are going to argue for early dates of documents, you should do it based on historical methodology.

I would recommend, for you, Maurice Casey. While I think he is entirely wrong and that his arguments are poor, he is probably a source that you could use for this debate.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:44:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:24:29 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 4:08:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
It will, as has often been the case with me, turn into a debate over the authorship and dating of the NT books, particularly the gospel accounts because a major tenet (the major tenet, maybe) of the "Jesus did not exist" position will be "No Eyewitness Accounts". They'll make that assertion in their opening statement.

This is one of the reasons it is 5 rounds of 10,000 characters each.
One is justified by using the consensus view without need of much argumentation for those dates, but if you wish to argue based on non-consensus dates (which I am also planning) then there should be enough space to be able to give enough argumentation in favor of your dates.

Why, if one is arguing for the consensus view without much need of presenting arguments, then the consensus is that Jesus did exist - and the burden of proof actually shifts to the negative.

Also, by limiting the dating to the so-called historical method, or historical-critical method, to the exclusion of other methodologies (internal evidence, grammatical/syntactical, etc), you are making it impossible to accurately date many ancient writings. About the only area I've found the historical method to be 100% accurate is: determination of the last possible date at which a particular piece of literature could have possibly been written. It's great for that. It's not so hot at pinpointing the earliest possible date.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."