Search the Community

Recently I challenged Garf to a formal debate on a topic brought up in a different thread. The resulting thread was not what we expected, so I thought I'd draft a set of guidelines for engaging in a formal debate in the Senate Chambers. Definition of Formal Debate in the Senate Chambers: a debate between two entities on a given topic using an agreed upon set of rules. An "entity" can be an individual or a team, but should be clearly defined at the outset of the debate. First, the debaters need to agree upon a set of basic rules. Lucas Forum and Senate Chambers rules and guidelines are automatically in effect, but I'm speaking more to technical details. For instance, who will present first? How many posts/rebuttals? What sources will be allowed/required? etc. This can be done via PM between the debaters, or the debater issuing the challenge can stipulate them in the first post along with the challenge. Regardless, the first post of the debate thread should have something along the lines of: Member 2 will then post his/her agreement to participate and assent to the rules. Member 1 will then begin with the opening post/argument. It'll all look something like this: Challenge & rules post Agreement post Opening argument post Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Rebuttal / questions / counter argument Second, the actual debate thread should have the prefix [DEBATE] at the beginning of the title. For instance: "[DEBATE] Navel Fuzz Comes From Eating Too Much Red Meat." Finally, only the debating entities will be allowed to post. I'm okay with a sideline discussion thread of the same title that has the prefix [TALK] instead of [DEBATE]. Regardless of how many rebuttals/questions posts the debaters agree on, once they've reached their agreed upon limit, I'll close the thread and archive its title in the post below. All posts not of the debating entities will be deleted/moved. Posts that exceed the agreed upon limit before closing will be deleted/moved. Please post here what you think of this sort of debate idea. Keep in mind that the above technical rules for a debate is a guideline only and debaters are free to agree upon whatever rules they'd like. Please, just do it via PM and then be sure that whichever agrees to be the challenger posts the rules in the opening post. The next post that follows this one will be a placeholder so I can create a table of contents for debates, should more than a few occur. Also, I'm going to sticky this thread -permanently if debates occur; or just temporarily to let everyone view it, provide their input, and decide if its a viable project/activity. Remember, while many of the debate topics that might arise are very serious in nature and often hot-button issues, the idea is to have fun and learn something. I've participated in many forum debates, both formal and informal, and I never fail to learn something.

There are two threads in the Senate that contain fallacious material regarding the belief in the supernatural. The OP has objected to these fallacies being pointed out in the threads he created, so I've created this one. This thread will be the place to debate the existence of the Christian god (lowercase 'g' intentional since I'm referring to the title not the name). If you have a good reason to believe in such a god, please post it here. I will provide the rational response to the supernatural. Should a good reason be shown, I will acknowledge it. Should the reason(s) alleged to be good end up being fallacious instead, I will speak to it. I have no claim to make -I'm not claiming that the Christian god is non-existent, rather, I'm saying there's no good reason that I've seen yet to believe this god (a.k.a. Yahweh, El, Elohim, Jehovah) is anything more than myth and fantasy. If the term "ignorant" is used, it refers most likely to the argument from ignorance, which basically states a speculative claim must be true since actual causality cannot be established. If the term "cult" is used, it refers to the anthropological definition, which generally refers to the followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices. If the term "fallacious" is used, it refers to the incorrect application of logic and reasoning. If the term "superstition" is used, it refers to the belief in the supernatural. Terms like "moron," "idiot," "retard," etc. will not be used and posts that contain these will be deleted. So... what is the first "good reason" to believe in the Christian god.