(November 21, 2013 at 1:13 am)Lion IRC Wrote: The formal debate motion; That Christianity has done more good for humanity than harm.
Affirmative/Negative : Lion IRC (Affirmative)
Participants - Lion IRC vs
Scope - Christianity/Christians as defined by Nicene theological distinctives etc. A debate contending the overall net good (or harm) to human society over the last 2000 years resulting from the presence of and adherence to biblical Christianity. The contestants will attempt to persuade the audience that their notion of good/harm consists in the position each side takes respectively.
Format - Heres my suggestion;
*Introduction of no more than 500 words each
* 3 main debate posts of up to 1500 words each excluding diagrams, tables, images, etc. (Videos specifically excluded from debate)
* 5 question Q&A interrogatory prior to concluding remarks :
* Conclusion of no more than 500 words each
* 3 day post turnaround (72 hours to submission deadline) from their opponent's last post. No time extensions shall be allowed without the agreement of both contestants.
* Debate Mod to review and approve submitted posts within 24 hours of their submission.
Rules - No abusive ad hominem remarks. No retrospective editing of posts. Automatic forfeit of the debate if a post deadline is not met.
Any other AF.org house rules as deemed enforceable by the Debate Mod.
Moderator(s) - Dont care. If the rules are clearly laid out and agreed to in advance, it doesnt matter who Mods the debate.
Post debate Poll?
Example poll.
*Lion IRC won the debate, but I still disagree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and I continue to agree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*Missluckie26 won the debate, but I still disagree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and I continue to agree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*I cannot decide who won the debate
The topic of the debate is; That Christianity has done more good for humanity than harm. But we seem to have bogged down on the scope of the topic.
Apparently, "Christians" might have flown planes into the Twin Towers and the affirmative side (me) isn't allowed to object that those weren't actually Christians.
Apparently, the only reason Spanish Monarchs wanted to colonise South America was to spread the Gospel and the acquisition of new territory and natural resources was purely coincidental.
Apparently, the only people who are "True Christians" for the purpose of this debate are the serial killers, the pedophiles hiding in the clergy, the blasphemous dictators who claim god-like status, the apocalyptic suicide cult leaders, homophobes, misogynists, money grabbing gold loving Televangelist hypocrites who don't practice what they preach...
Apparently we are supposed to debate "Christianity" but we can't inspect the behaviour of allegedly Christian people to see if that behaviour can in fact be reconciled WITH Christianity.
No Lion IRC, you CAN'T TRY TO DEFINE Christian doctrine during the debate. No you can't appeal to the bible to refute the (idiotic) claim that Jesus wants His followers to fight each other until none are left. No you can't try to claim that love and forgiveness and sharing with those less fortunate is a benefit to society, because "everyone knows" that such behaviour makes people weak and insipid and vulnerable to the far superior Darwinian Law of the jungle which makes stronger Übermensch by natural selection and obeying ones selfish DNA.
I find it bizarre that someone would offer to have a formal debate, (some people actually do know what a FORMAL debate is) and then, after having already seen the topic and the proposed scope, try to start denying something as FUNDAMENTAL to a formal debate, as the need for agreement upon the meaning of the key words in the debate proposition!
Oh yeah, and the blatant, unapologetic personal insults directed at your prospective debate opponent IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the debate are lame.
