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?

[WinePusher]

Would you not be interested?

Maybe, depends what the topic is and if another christian is interested.

Perhaps proposing a topic, interested parties could put themselves forth.

Here's a few topics:

1) Do Modern Scientific Discoveries Support The Existence Of God?

2) Is The Christian God An Evil, Vengeful God, or a Good and Loving God?

3) Was Jesus A Historical Figure and Did He Rise From The Dead?

4) What Is The Origin Of Morality?

The voting begins.............now

[LiamOS]

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

[Skyangel]

Who judges the debate winner?
How is the winner judged?
What is the criteria and point system?

It appears to me that none of the debates on this site are ever judged or concluded in any way. This is something I see that is lacking and ought to be addressed if you are serious about making this a proper debate site, otherwise it is nothing more than a "wannabe debate" site which is full of unresolved issues. It becomes like any other so called debate site which is nothing more than a forum filled with discussion about peoples opinions and no one ever convinces the so called debate opposition to "come over to their side" or change their mind about their position.
After all, the objective in any debate situation is to convince people that you are right and your opponent is wrong and you want the judges to vote for you instead of the opponent.

Therefore who are the judges? How many of them are there ? What are their own biases? You need to make sure the judges are not taking sides but are being objective too.

[WinePusher]

Who judges the debate winner?
How is the winner judged?
What is the criteria and point system?

It appears to me that none of the debates on this site are ever judged or concluded in any way. This is something I see that is lacking and ought to be addressed if you are serious about making this a proper debate site, otherwise it is nothing more than a "wannabe debate" site which is full of unresolved issues. It becomes like any other so called debate site which is nothing more than a forum filled with discussion about peoples opinions and no one ever convinces the so called debate opposition to "come over to their side" or change their mind about their position.
After all, the objective in any debate situation is to convince people that you are right and your opponent is wrong and you want the judges to vote for you instead of the opponent.

Therefore who are the judges? How many of them are there ? What are their own biases? You need to make sure the judges are not taking sides but are being objective too.

I don't think people should debate to win, and it only becomes an unserious discussion when you turn a debate into a game. You'll get non theists saying the non theist won and you'll get theists saying the theist won, its pointless.

I debate on here because I enjoy a challenge and having my convictions tested to see if they actually mean anything, not to "win."

[Skyangel]

Who judges the debate winner?
How is the winner judged?
What is the criteria and point system?

It appears to me that none of the debates on this site are ever judged or concluded in any way. This is something I see that is lacking and ought to be addressed if you are serious about making this a proper debate site, otherwise it is nothing more than a "wannabe debate" site which is full of unresolved issues. It becomes like any other so called debate site which is nothing more than a forum filled with discussion about peoples opinions and no one ever convinces the so called debate opposition to "come over to their side" or change their mind about their position.
After all, the objective in any debate situation is to convince people that you are right and your opponent is wrong and you want the judges to vote for you instead of the opponent.

Therefore who are the judges? How many of them are there ? What are their own biases? You need to make sure the judges are not taking sides but are being objective too.

I don't think people should debate to win, and it only becomes an unserious discussion when you turn a debate into a game. You'll get non theists saying the non theist won and you'll get theists saying the theist won, its pointless.

I debate on here because I enjoy a challenge and having my convictions tested to see if they actually mean anything, not to "win."

Then you are not debating with a goal in mind but are merely having a discussion or an argument which ends up never being resolved.
If you need to have your convictions tested to see if they mean anything, does that mean you are unsure if your convictions mean anything in the first place?
If you doubt your own convictions then you can be swayed to change your convictions to be the same as those who oppose your convictions.
If you are sure and certain about your own convictions nothing will sway you from them and you have "won" certainty and assurance of your convictions before you even begin the debate.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate
An argument, or discussion, usually in an ordered or formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision;

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=debate
debate, disputation, public debate (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote))

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate
debate : a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure


What is the use of debating anything if you never come to a decision regarding which side to take? If you have already made up your mind what side you are on, why debate if you do not wish to convince others to also take the same side?

[Zzyzx]

.

What is the use of debating anything if you never come to a decision regarding which side to take? If you have already made up your mind what side you are on, why debate if you do not wish to convince others to also take the same side?

Perhaps some people should NOT attempt to debate -- including those who do not or cannot distinguish between formal debate (such as high school or college debate games / competition) in which one side is declared "winner", perhaps by vote vs. informal debate as exemplified by these threads.

Others who might be well advised to avoid debate are those who have nothing to present other than their opinions, conjectures and unverified tales.

If I was a religionist / supernaturalist, I darn sure would not attempt to debate to promote or defend those beliefs. In my opinion, beliefs should be personal and private matters -- not items to be thrown around in public arena.

I have no motivation to "win" or to convince anyone of anything -- but instead seek to put ideas (usually in opposition to religious propaganda) before readers for their consideration. I allow and encourage "opponents" to discredit or destroy their own "arguments". their credibility, and the cause they seek to promote or defend -- and I appreciate their frequent willingness to do so.

[LiamOS]

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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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�)?

This is something I see that is lacking and ought to be addressed if you are serious about making this a proper debate site,

If you have complaints, it is appropriate to take up the matter with Otseng and advise him how he should run his website – and perhaps show him “how things should be done�.

Let us know how it works out.

otherwise it is nothing more than a "wannabe debate" site which is full of unresolved issues.

Those who make a poor showing in these debates and fail to earn the respect of others are prone to complain about the forum. I take their complaints to be an indication of their failure to be persuasive (or even credible).

Those who are dissatisfied with or demeaning of OUR forum are welcome to find another place where they are more comfortable.

It becomes like any other so called debate site which is nothing more than a forum filled with discussion about peoples opinions and no one ever convinces the so called debate opposition to "come over to their side" or change their mind about their position.

Is the purpose of debate, in your opinion, to convince “the so called debate opposition to ‘come over to their side’�?

After all, the objective in any debate situation is to convince people that you are right and your opponent is wrong and you want the judges to vote for you instead of the opponent.

We are not engaged in high school debate games in which one side is declared “winner�.

Therefore who are the judges? How many of them are there ? What are their own biases? You need to make sure the judges are not taking sides but are being objective too.

In these debates the closest we have to “judges� are the READERS.

Who judges the debate winner?

If any “judging� is done, it is by readers

How is the winner judged?

The merits of IDEAS presented and the effectiveness of presentation (including substantiation of claims and statements) are EVALUATED by individual readers.

If you feel a need to have your performance “judged�, perhaps you could initiate a poll of readers asking if they find your “arguments� persuasive or informative. Check with Moderators to see if such a poll is acceptable.

What is the criteria and point system?

That may have application to high school debate games / competition.

[otseng]

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

Participants might make a closing comment, but topics are not voted on to see who won.

This is something I see that is lacking and ought to be addressed if you are serious about making this a proper debate site, otherwise it is nothing more than a "wannabe debate" site which is full of unresolved issues.

No, people here are very serious about debating here. But, there is no need to "win" a debate. As a matter of fact, if a debate participant does declare victory, it is frowned on. The purpose on this forum is not to "win" debates, but to simply present your case. If someone changes their mind on a matter, so be it. If nobody changes their mind, so be it also.

As for a "wannabe debate" site, is there a particular debating forum in mind that this forum should emulate?

After all, the objective in any debate situation is to convince people that you are right and your opponent is wrong and you want the judges to vote for you instead of the opponent.

Nobody here is running for political office. We are not a jury deciding who will win a case. There is no need to vote to see who wins. Though we might in the future try it as an experiment and vote for a winner, but that is not the SOP here.

[Skyangel]

.


Others who might be well advised to avoid debate are those who have nothing to present other than their opinions, conjectures and unverified tales.

If I was a religionist / supernaturalist, I darn sure would not attempt to debate to promote or defend those beliefs. In my opinion, beliefs should be personal and private matters -- not items to be thrown around in public arena.

Consider if no believers ever shared their ideas, concepts or beliefs with the unbelievers, what would you end up debating about? You would only have a one sided debate where all the unbelievers all agree that you cannot prove God exists as they basically tell the believers ( who are not debating but merely lurking on the sidelines in fear of presenting any opinions and getting chasitized for those opinions), that they are not debating but merely pushing opinions and conjectures and "god forbid" even preaching to the unbelievers who might just get converted if they continue so we can't have that can we?
Those who think beliefs ought to be a personal and private matter ought to keep their own opinions to themselves. If your beliefs or unbeliefs are so personal to you, why are you typing anything at all on the internet which is a public place?

Asking Christians for tangible proof of God in a debate is like asking you to prove what you dreamed last time you had a dream and demanding you provide physical evidence that you are not making things up.

The invisible realm exists and all people know it. In my opinion, only fools refuse to believe things because they cannot see them. They just don't want to admit they are fools who are denying the existence of the invisible intangible realm of the mind will and emotions of mankind.
I apologize if that offends anyone but I cant think of any other way to say it so as not to make it sound offensive. If the cap fits please wear it. The cap won't offend those who refuse to wear it.