To the Moderators, please!

[Reforged]

Hi,

Godschild and I have agreed to do a formal debate. Please see this post for the details:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14612-po...#pid336363

Is there any thread in which we can do a formal debate without interference from others? They have it in some forums. The thread is strictly moderated so others can't post in it and disturb the flow of arguments.

Thanks!!

Hey greneknight,
Is it OK if a few of us Christians anonymously collaborate and write the debate posts together then you wont know which one of your *cough* fellow Christians it is you are actually debating?

No, no it isn't ok. Thats an unfair advantage and completely undermines the idea of going one on one.

[LastPoet]

Still, all of them together wouldn't make a simple sound argument for god. This should be fun

[jonb]

Hey greneknight,
Is it OK if a few of us Christians anonymously collaborate and write the debate posts together then you wont know which one of your *cough* fellow Christians it is you are actually debating?

No, no it isn't ok. Thats an unfair advantage and completely undermines the idea of going one on one.

Raphie you are forgetting all chrstians have a common culture, and in this culture it is quite normal for them to share alter-boys out among themselves.

[greneknight]

Hi,

Godschild and I have agreed to do a formal debate. Please see this post for the details:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14612-po...#pid336363

Is there any thread in which we can do a formal debate without interference from others? They have it in some forums. The thread is strictly moderated so others can't post in it and disturb the flow of arguments.

Thanks!!

Hey greneknight,
Is it OK if a few of us Christians anonymously collaborate and write the debate posts together then you wont know which one of your *cough* fellow Christians it is you are actually debating?

Wait, I don't get it. You guys are all adults and you don't want to debate with a 13 year old one-on-one? You need to collaborate together? It's a bit puzzling and a rather odd way to do a debate, but how many of you are there going to be? You must be honest and give me a specific figure. I suggest it should not be more than 5 of you. If it's too many, it can get quite confusing. And I don't like this anonymity. You must at least give me the names of those participating. Then one of you can be the "spokesman" and that person will post on behalf of the rest of you. To be fair to me, you must not have 5 different ways to address the same point. What you guys can do is to collaborate (possibly by private message to one another) and the spokesman will post - he should write a coherent argument of the points and it must not be five different haphazard answers al thrown at me for me to sort out.

In other words I don't mind doing a battle against the five of you (or whatever the number is) but you must not give me five separate (sometimes repetitive) posts which will be too much work for me.

Is that agreed? When can we start? To be fair, since I didn't ask for collaboration, nobody should send me private messages to help me with the arguments because that would be unfair. Anyway, the atheists here are honourable people and they wouldn't help me to cheat.

Bring on your 5 men. Sir Greneknight will take you guys on singlehandedly.

Please list my opponents and appoint your spokesman and let's get started!!! Let the battle begin!

[frankiej]

Bring on your 5 men. Sir Greneknight will take you guys on singlehandedly.

Wow, you need to watch what you are writing. Someone of your age shouldn't be making advances on an older man, never mind 5 of them... single-handedly too!



These jokes are pretty much writing themselves. Thanks.

[Nine]

nobody should send me private messages to help me with the arguments because that would be unfair. Anyway, the atheists here are honourable people and they wouldn't help me to cheat.

Bring on your 5 men. Sir Greneknight will take you guys on singlehandedly.

Please list my opponents and appoint your spokesman and let's get started!!! Let the battle begin!

Admirable but a bad idea. If they want to debate them they should do it one at a time. They shouldn't be doing it anonymously at all.

Not only would their 5 on one be unfair it would be extremely cowardly and I think dishonest.

[greneknight]

nobody should send me private messages to help me with the arguments because that would be unfair. Anyway, the atheists here are honourable people and they wouldn't help me to cheat.

Bring on your 5 men. Sir Greneknight will take you guys on singlehandedly.

Please list my opponents and appoint your spokesman and let's get started!!! Let the battle begin!

Admirable but a bad idea. If they want to debate them they should do it one at a time. They shouldn't be doing it anonymously at all.

Not only would their 5 on one be unfair it would be extremely cowardly and I think dishonest.

Hi,

Thanks for your post. But it's not dishonest at all. They are quite honest to say it openly and I admire them for this honesty. I mean they could have quietly appointed one chap while the others could communicate with him in private and prepare the arguments and I wouldn't have been the wiser. The fact that they brought it up is a credit to them. On my part, I will make sure I'll be honest and not get help on the sly. But I must be allowed to have recourse to the internet of course, just as they have the same right. That's how I will have to do my research anyway.

I don't mind it also because I'm sure it will be a great learning experience for them and for me particularly. I have done quite a lot of reading on my own and I think I will be able to give a good fight. But I'm confident, in the end, it's not the number on each side that's important. Truth will prevail. Of course I must do my research properly.

So, Lion, Godschild and possibly Drich, Jeffonthenet, and all the other Christians, when can we begin?

[Reforged]

nobody should send me private messages to help me with the arguments because that would be unfair. Anyway, the atheists here are honourable people and they wouldn't help me to cheat.

Bring on your 5 men. Sir Greneknight will take you guys on singlehandedly.

Please list my opponents and appoint your spokesman and let's get started!!! Let the battle begin!

Admirable but a bad idea. If they want to debate them they should do it one at a time. They shouldn't be doing it anonymously at all.

Not only would their 5 on one be unfair it would be extremely cowardly and I think dishonest.

Hes only making those statements secure in the knowledge it wouldn't be allowed for fairness sake.
I'm now kind of tempted to say we should call his bluff on this one and let it happen.

[greneknight]

Hi Lion and Godschild,

You guys let me know the names of the people participating first. After that, we still need to have some rules. I have a few other suggestions for the rules.

First, I would suggest that there shouldn't be long quotations. My experience is many Christians tend to copy and paste from long and tedious commentaries which usually don't address the issues on all fours. That's not fair to me because you can't expect me to read somebody else's commentary. In a debate, I want to see YOUR arguments, not another commentator's. Similarly, you cannot give me a reading list and say the answer to a particular question is in that reading list or in that book. You have to use your own words and say what the answer is.

Next, I would suggest that either party can have what I shall call "The Inquisition". This will be particular questions that one party feels the other party has not addressed or is evading or is important to him. The Inquisition should appear at the end of the post and each question in the the Inquisition must be specifically and serially numbered. The questions must give full particulars of what is being asked and there must be reasonable specificity. For example, you can't ask in the Inquisition "What is your view on free will?" That will be too lacking in specifics. You can ask "Can you give an example where someone exercises free will?" because the question is specific and the other party just has to give an example. Or you can ask, "Do you believe that free will conflicts with predestination?" because that is a specific question that can easily be answered with a yes or a no. Of course the other party need not answer with only a yes or a no. He can always elaborate on his answers. We must have a rule that the Inquisition must be answered in full. Failure to answer any question in the Inquisition will mean the party is admitting defeat. All questions in the Inquisition must be answered as soon as it is time for the party asked to give his rebuttal. You can't put off your answers for another rebuttal later.

Next, I would suggest that either party has to be specific in its argument. A party can't say, "But that is already answered in John's Gospel". He must be specific and give the actual verse number and the specific passage. I don't want to have to flip through the Bible if you are going to have a hundred biblical citations. And he cannot say, "But we have addressed that issue in our earlier post. If in fact he has done so, he should copy and paste from the earlier post of his.

We have to decide on the timing. How long will the other party have before he can respond? We should be fair and the timing should be the same. I'm not asking for more time because I'm doing it singlehandedly so you mustn't ask for more time because there are more of you. I think it should be easier if there are more of you because you can distribute the workload among yourselves whereas I shall have to address all the arguments myself. But the same time should be allotted for each side - I'm ok with that.

If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.

[Minimalist]

Godschild will tell you no doubt the story of how young David killed Goliath the Giant with a single sling.

If that's going to be an example of the level of this debate everyone best wear boots.