So, same psycho different day

---

You guys set that up, I'm going to take a nap.

I think a word count limit is needed for 4 reasons:

- it's supposed to be a structured formal debate. If you can't gather and present your case in a format with boundaries that apply equally to both sides then why have time deadlines either? Just have a never ending, page after page thread full of TLDR cut-n-paste plagiarism.

- in addition to providing a level playing field, the word limit is also a small mercy to the Moderator and audience who, although they might like reading one contestants' relatively short posts, they may find it a bit tedious wading through 20,000 words about circumcision, the Crusaders laying siege to Jerusalem, the prosperity gospel and megachurches, the ordination of women priests, whether Hitler was a true Christian....

- if you make a big seal about not wanting a word count limit and your subsequent debate post submissions are less than 1500 words it leaves you open to the criticism that you over promised and under delivered. (Ran out of ammo.)

- The structure of the debate, intro, substantive post, rebuttal, Q&A, summary/conclusion, logically suggests that not every post can be of unlimited length. For example, how many words do you need to pose a single question! If there's no agreed word limit set in advance, then one sides summing up comments could conceivably go on for 15 pages and introduce material not previously mentioned.

---

(November 21, 2013 at 5:25 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: So, same psycho different day

---

You guys set that up, I'm going to take a nap.

Nice!
Getting in a few ad Homs before the formal debate in which such insults wouldn't be allowed - right Stimbo?

Better out here than in there, but insults aren't necessarily ad homs anyway.

(November 19, 2013 at 1:50 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I dont need citations. You DO!

You made a claim that something was in the Bible and then refused to cite chapter and verse when called upon to do so.

Quote:No - it is your unsupported special pleading of something nebulous and vague that you really wish was true. But because you cant show hard stats when, where, who, how many...names, dates, (like they do in history books) you have to go with the ambit bluff that usually works when youre surrounded by herd mentality groupies.

It's not. This is all stuff we learned in school. Had you paid attention, you would not have to ask for a single citation. Again, I am not referencing secret, exclusive knowledge. I am referencing what is common knowledge to any high-school graduate. This is all stuff you learn about in seventh and eight grade history classes. What, precisely, am I to cite? It's in every single history book ever written on the relevant subjects.

Because, I mean, are you actually suggesting that Christians were NOT responsible for these things? THAT'S a claim extraordinary enough to warrant some citations.

What you are attempting to do here, in the very height of hypocrisy, is to avoid the point by pretending as if citing sources means anything to you.

Quote:I will happily get bible verses for people who commit to reading them and agree (in advance) that they WILL modify their view when proven wrong.

I will read anything that is shown to me. Whether or not my viewpoint will be modified has everything to do with how right you actually are.

You're just trying to avoid admitting that you were full of shit.

Quote:Motive, motive, motive!!! Think Ryantology. THINK!
Whose 'cause' is it when humans of the same religion are fighting each other? How does God benefit if all his worshippers are killing each other?

Your god loves death and war?

(November 19, 2013 at 12:54 am)Ryantology Wrote: Theres the tell-tale hallmark of special pleading.
The word "unquestionably''.
Dont question. Just accept.
Why?
Because I said so and everyone knows I'm right so there!

I am not of the opinion that any good can balance out multiple genocides, but I did momentarily forget that you don't think genocides are bad.

Quote:Wanna have a formal debate on the topic - Christianity has done more good/harm for humanity?

Nope.

(November 19, 2013 at 12:54 am)Ryantology Wrote: Strangely, thats the exact OPPOSITE of how you get an idea to gain acceptance. How bad must an idea be if the only way you cvan get people to say they like it is by totalitarian brute force. (eg. Atheistic Communism.)

Then, why was Christianity just one of a thousand insignificant cults until Constantine?

Quote:Grab one of those history books you were going on about and see how monumentally UNsuccessful Tomas de Torquemada was.

How about we look at the how the forced conversions of natives has led to a very Catholic South America?

Quote:Read up on the rapid rise of Christianity IN SPITE of the attempts to persecute it out of existence.

Again, the rapid rise had much to do with the leader of one of the world's most powerful empires adopting the faith and mandating that his empire share it with him. The spectacle of rulers adopting Christianity on behalf of their peoples was a common occurrence in the following centuries. It was not the result of populist zeal in the face of oppression.

(November 21, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Better out here than in there, but insults aren't necessarily ad homs anyway.

What purpose DO they serve if not to try and belittle someone when they appear in the context of an AvT contest of ideas?

Just to be clear, calling people whose idea(s) you oppose..."psychos" would constitute an abusive ad hominem in our (tentative) formal debate right?

The person making the abusive ad hom has to justify the RELEVANCE of their insult if it is something OTHER than an illogical attempt to besmirch one opponent before, during or after a persuasive contest of ideas.

An ad hominem is an attempt to deflect discussion by attacking the character of the person in place of an argument. Not all insults are ad homs; they may be just observations.

If you were to call me a retard for expressing some view with which you disagree, that's merely your opinion. Saying that my argument is worthless because I'm a retard, or English, or male etc, and thus beneath consideration, that's an ad hom.

A person who, in the course of a discussion, or pending discussion, makes the passing "observation" that someone who, (by pure coincidence) just so happens to be their interlocutor, is a @%$#!!! low life POS, is either commiting an ad hom abuse or they are gratuitously off-topic and inflammatory.
That wouldnt be allowed in a formal debate which you were Moderating would it Stimbo?

BTW - using the word 'retard' as an epithet is highly offensive to many disabled people.

(November 21, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Better out here than in there, but insults aren't necessarily ad homs anyway.

What purpose DO they serve if not to try and belittle someone when they appear in the context of an AvT contest of ideas?

Just to be clear, calling people whose idea(s) you oppose..."psychos" would constitute an abusive ad hominem in our (tentative) formal debate right?

Lol oh dear. I guess that's my bad, I didn't quote the post right before mine as the post I was talking about. I wasn't aware that now all my posts would be considered solely being aimed at you.
So just to be clear, I did not call Lion a psycho. I called his god a psycho in relation to something someone else said.

And I really did go take a nap, I just didn't want you thinking I fell off the face of the planet while we were talking this out.

---

While word count I believe should be unlimited (although for sources, word count could be mandatory in order to decrease excessive reading), the amount of post and replies can and should be limited. I don't see any of your reasons being legitimate reasons if these stipulations are made. I don't have to say much more than "Catholics", to make my point anyways..

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/formal...t6929.html

Quote:participants should explicitly state the size of the posts that they consider apposite for the debate, and agree upon this. The usual procedure is to agree upon a maximum word count, though it is understood that this number is merely the central value of a bounding region. For example, if the participants agree upon a post count of 2,000 words for the posts in section [2] of the debate structure above, then it is usually understood that a post count that is between, say, 1,900 and 2,100 words is acceptable in this vein. A boundary of ±5% either side of the declared total is frequently the choice adopted, though again, participants can agree different terms