Certain tactics

[Dantalion]

I would just like to say, that in my humble opinion, 'the community' here must look into this matter.
In general, certain people and certain tactics just serve to anger people, discredit genuine believers and make a mockery of the debate forum.

This isn't a 'theists vs atheists' thing, it's about intellectual honesty, respect for the principles of 'the debate'.
This is of course not for me to point out, but every rational person here can see there are users that SO often break the same rules (in this case, 5, 7, 9 and sometimes even 13) I find it baffling they're not acted upon.

[otseng]

I simply ask that you and your moderators prevent people from dismissing evidence (when they say that it's FALSE or NOTHING) because it is unscientific.

Here is what SailingCyclops said:
"To me, anything which is not capable of being proved or disproved, verifiable or falsifiable, is inherently false by default. Since no god which has ever been defined can be proved or disproved by the very nature of the concept itslf, it must be false."

Since he prefaced it with "To me", it is offered as his sole opinion. He is not in this instance saying that what you presented is actually false.

you should've noticed that skeptics often resort to calling evidence false, DEBUNKED, stunts, without offering ANY evidence to back their claims. If I told you that you were lying about something or that you used fraud, shouldn't I be obligated to provide proof just as much as the person claiming the affirmative?

I personally accept supernatural events, but I also can sympathize with the skeptics' viewpoint. They will only accept a high standard of evidence, one that is verifiable and repeatable. If they do not accept your evidence, then you either move on or present additional evidence.

To enforce that would simply mean not only allowing unscientific evidence but also making sure that all understand that unscientific evidence IS evidence and to say otherwise is FALSE and MISLEADING.

Non-scientific evidence is certainly allowed, but not all evidence are given equal weight by posters.

The standard to accomplish that here I thought was logic and evidence, and not what some person thinks is truth.

I would think that everyone here values truth, logic, and evidence. If something is not supported by logic/evidence, it would be just an opinion, even if they claim it is the truth.

If a Christian wants to use his or her Bible as authoriatative or objective evidence, would you let them?

It all depends. If arguing with a non-Christian, he would not likely consider the Bible to be authoritative. If arguing with a Christian, I would hope that he considers the Bible to be authoritative.

If a skeptic wants to accept that only scientific evidence is evidence and then call all others FALSE (which is where the wrong comes in), would you let them bask in their ignorance?

"Bask in their ignorance" would not be a civil way to describe it.

But, I still think that it should be handled by debate, rather than adding some sort of rule that one must accept any and all evidence presented.

I thought the purpose for making a rule for what using the Bible counts for was to avoid people from using the Bible as absolute truth in debate.

It's primary purpose is to avoid just offering opinions and generalizations. There's got to be at least some justification for claims made.

Why can't a rule with similar purpose be used to keep people from dismissing unscientific evidence when they have no evidenced/logical reason to call it FALSE evidence or NO evidence?

There needs to be a strong reason to add to the list of rules. Like in the case of adding guidelines on preaching, this has been an issue for a long time for many posters. If only a few people are creating or experiencing a problem, it's not likely a new rule will be added.

If someone makes a personal decision not to accept evidence then that's fine; we have people that don't accept scientific evidence also. But then when you get to a point when they want to use their ignorance or illogical reason to call the evidence FALSE, then that's where I think you need to intervene.

I'll do this. If someone says that only scientific evidence can be presented and non-scientific evidence are all false, I'll add a comment correcting this view. However, if someone only offers it as his opinion, then that is allowable.

You propose that I move on, but no, that's not what I will likely do. Moving on from people who I see as biased is what causes me to be a aggressive debater because you have to pin that person down and corner them to get them to fess up or to EXPOSE how biased and unreasonable they are for dismissing or accepting something with NO evidence and/or logical reason. Being nice and moving on doesn't help that nor does it lead to a quality debate.

Actually, I see it as the opposite. Trying to get someone to "confess" by applying force is not civil. And using this tactic will more likely get you into trouble rather than your opponent.

People should not have to be wasting time debating these things when they are clearly in YOUR rules.

To be clear, the rules do not state anything about the types of evidence allowed or that all evidence should be accepted.

That's not correct, Otseng.

Yes, there's a link to evidence in the rules, but that was presented to define what is evidence. It's not specifically rules that were meant to be enforceable. The only enforceable rule on evidence is:
"5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim."

This in itself does not dictate what types of evidence are allowed or not allowed. However, if you want to be effective in presenting evidence, it should follow Presenting evidence.

You want to restrict Christians on what they call true while you refuse to restrict skeptics on what they can call false.

It's better not to propose what I actually think, esp if I've never stated such things.

Calling something false or true are both claims, and as such, both should be SUPPORTED with EVIDENCE and/or a logical reason.

Sure. I think everyone would agree with this, including skeptics.