A Suggestion?

[WinePusher]

Perhaps in the future could do debates in pairs or teams, assuming we can find enough people for each side.

An intriguing proposition, having two people on one ideological side debate two people on another ideological side. What do the moderators think?

[Skyangel]

I think a perfect example of why Skyangel's idea is a bad one would be my 'Creationism' thread. A theist who reads it will likely think DavidBG's arguments are good and strong. A non-theist would likely see more weight in nygreenguy's, Grumpy's, Goat's, Zeeby's or my arguments.

So what's the problem with that? That's exactly how the world works. People will only agree with those who have the same opinions as they do. Who wins then depends on who is the majority in agreement of their opinions not necessarily who is the best debater or has the best argument or who is telling the Truth.

In many debate situations the majority tend to gang up on the minority. It is the same as it was in the bible stories when the majority ganged up against Jesus who was right and the majority was wrong but were too proud to admit it.

I think many people are too afraid that if people vote for their arguments that they might lose. If people actually resolved issues in this world than leave them hanging unresolved, this world would not be in the mess it is in but people would learn to resolve issues instead of running away from them or sweeping them "under the rug" and ignoring them.

[Skyangel]

.

It appears to me that none of the debates on this site are ever judged or concluded in any way.

.
This is not high school debate.

What “conclusion� do you suggest?

When you “lose� a debate or repeatedly make a poor showing in the eyes of readers, are you willing to concede that your position is defective (and “go over to the other side�)?

Let's take an example of a debate situation where someone asks " Does god exist"
It ought to be concluded with people saying which side they vote for and why they came to that conclusion based on the arguments presented . Even if the conclusion ends up being God exists as well as God does not exist and the reason is that it all depends on ones definition and perception of the word God. At least that is a logical conclusion in my opinion. What about yours?

[WinePusher]

I'd kill a kitten to take part in the first, and the rest would make exhilarating reads.

Well, getting back to the point of this thread. I'm afraid I have no kitten for you to kill, but I'd be happy to participate a 2 on 2 debate with the topic being:

"Do Modern Scientific Discoveries Support The Existence Of God."

Now, we just need partners......

[Abraxas]

I'd kill a kitten to take part in the first, and the rest would make exhilarating reads.

Well, getting back to the point of this thread. I'm afraid I have no kitten for you to kill, but I'd be happy to participate a 2 on 2 debate with the topic being:

"Do Modern Scientific Discoveries Support The Existence Of God."

Now, we just need partners......

If he has no objection, I would be happy to join with him on the topic.

[LiamOS]

I'm afraid I have no kitten for you to kill

If he has no objection, I would be happy to join with him on the topic.

You're more than welcome to. I'd also gladly vacate my position to somebody, if they wish.
Also, I hope you're moderately well versed in Biology, as I'm lacking by the standards of other non-theists on the forum.
I fear that I may be slightly less active in the coming week than usual, but I'd still be able to participate.

So, before beginning, would it be wise to decide how the debate should work?
I think there would need to be a reasonable amount of communication between those on each team, perhaps allowing each to address slightly separate issues, and not overlap.

I don't suppose anybody has any great ideas, do they?

[WinePusher]

So, before beginning, would it be wise to decide how the debate should work?I think there would need to be a reasonable amount of communication between those on each team, perhaps allowing each to address slightly separate issues, and not overlap.

I don't suppose anybody has any great ideas, do they?

Opening statements from each team laying out their position on "Do modern scientific discoveries support the existence of God." A series of rebuttals, maybe taking turns and once everyone has gone we start the rebuttals in that order. For example:

AkiThePirate's rebuttal
WinePusher's rebuttal
Abraxas's rebuttal
Other person's rebuttal

then the order starts over. But if this debate is going to go foward, another theist needs to step up.

[LiamOS]

That sounds good, perhaps you should ask in the Holy Huddle section.

Also, might it not be difficult to say how modern discoveries do not support a God hypothesis? I mean, I can think of one or two examples, but it's exceedingly difficult to argue a negative.