Absolute Truth (I know, but I need some help)

[Spacetime]

Well, I hope you have a good time, but if most of them are theists then, be prepared for presuppositions and fallacies. If lkingpinl shows up, sit next to him.

This is actually a good point. In the debate, since you're using Robert's Rules of Order, it may do well to learn what the common fallacies are (and how to spot presuppositions), then watch for those presuppositions and fallacies, and continually point them out. Be as stubborn and pedantic as you like on this angle, since so many of the common arguments I've heard Christians put forward in arguments are presuppositionalist.

For example, the common argument seen here is "We cannot be moral without a Moral Lawgiver" presupposes that there is no known mechanism for morality among social animals (there is, in fact) and that there exists such a thing as a universally-accepted Moral Lawgiver (you would, in this case, raise a Point of Information and ask the speaker to clarify how they can operate from that premise, since a ML is not established as factual, and ask them to specify why any one ML should be followed or believed as moral in the face of competing claims from other).

Thank you for your reply.  I was first worried about using the rules of order in this discussion, for the very same reason that the first two pages of this thread demonstrates; that term-defining is important on this particular topic.  Constantly making points of information to have the chair require the speaker to clarify terms makes for very little progress.  It could be a long night.  So, I'm preparing by printing a list of important definitions to submit as an amendment to any proposition.  That, though, could take too much time if anyone decides they have a problem with an Oxford American dictionary.

On using argumentation theory, I'm going to be reserved.  I don't want to present myself as dismissing points only because they're fallacious.  I'd rather try to discover, as you've suggested, how they accept those precepts.  I also afraid that pointing out fallacies (a lot) will make me appear ignorant on the topic.  I'm doing my best to draft good points (by also trying to tear them apart), but I'd like to think that the conversation can go on without resorting to that.  It does help that I'm familiar with a lot of modern Christian apologetics.

I also think you hit the nail on the head when you bring up morality.  I think a conversation about absolute truth is destined to return to absolute morality when talking to a theist.

Thanks again, bro.