Glad to see I have some support. Well let’s give it a try and add the “Debate Forum” to the experimental section. BTW, why don’t you go ahead and move the “Essays & Theses” forum along with the “Creative Writing” forum to the regular section? I think that they would be used more there. Yes? I’m guessing Leo = Pangloss? So, Pangloss get us started and I will jump in.
Here is my suggestion for rules and guidelines:
Each argument will be formatted as follows . . .
(1) introductory argument
(2) correlating rebuttals
(3) reply to the rebuttals
(4) concluding arguments
I’m not quite sure how to decide who goes first, so I suggest that the topic proposer goes first and the challenger goes second. Any other suggestions?
I would prefer that there be two judges, but it is unlikely that we will have enough participation, so I guess one will do. Here is how I propose the arguments be evaluated:
Hopefully that is not too confusing nor cumbersome. Rules for the forum? No one should comment on the argument until after the debate is finalized. Then the thread should be open to criticism and commenting. Any other ideas?
I’d love to although I think I will have a hard time finding an opposition. Anyone? Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or just anyone who wants to debate the plausibility of an afterlife?
I must applaud the organization and hard work going into this new forum idea. I didn’t think it was going to be so organized (as details lacked at the beginning of the discussion), but I am impressed at how together this topic has gotten and that people are serious and interested in doing it. Despite my previous reluctance, I give my Bravo! and two thumbs up for the idea.
Once everything is organized and the forum is made, I wouldn’t mind being Skeptic’s opposition for the discussion of the afterlife. Hopefully it won’t be too soon, as I would love to involve as much of my time and resources to the topic as possible, and unfortunately I am busy with school at the moment and the possibility of leaving the country for a few days.
If not, then I will wait my turn. Wishing you all the best.
No-one should debate a line they are not entirely convinced of. I’ll use your judging criteria for the time being, though to be honest, it is not really the competitive element that attracted me to the idea in the first place. It was the opportunity to see (within a ‘controlled environment’) how a debate works in moving towards the truth, a common truth. Hence, the idea of their being ‘concluding arguments’ whilst being a nice way to clean up the debate, and bring some finality to it, it may not be desirable if it is clear that there is still a way to go, that both debaters are not broadly agreed on at least a few key elements of the issues being debated.
I’ll insert small comment pieces as to how or if to advance the debate further, and will keep the two debaters informed. Both should (if in any doubt as to the desirability of their submission) send their ‘cases’ to leopollak@hotmail.com. I’ll embellish remove or suggest bits and pieces, if necessary, before the user submits, so the debate keeps a strong momentum, and doesn’t just lapse into two walls facing each other, with no effort on either side to build a bridge. The forms and procedure will be made clear at the start of the thread, and will need both debators agreement before it starts.
Anyhow, are there any takers, sincere believers, persuasive arguers, for the suggested motion ‘This house believes that to know of an afterlife, is to know thyself’. As a hint, there is a lot of scope for arguing the importance of dignity in life, a life with a prospect of an afterlife, being a life without deperation or fear, a bearable belief system. Or maybe a perspective bound closer to a specific religion. Do not be scared. No-one’s faith will be questioned or at stake. Any takers?
Okay, I’m interested; I’ll send my submission in by next Monday, as I’ll need the weekend to work on the argument. I’m against the motion, and will argue that this is untrue.
Sorry to dissapoint, but Skeptic seems to have bagged the opposition to this motion. I knew there’d be more demand to oppose it. I asked ‘for’ the motion. Maybe you could team up with Skeptic, or suggest an alternative motion. That is by no means the concrete motion. If you hold an unusual belief, you could maybe suggest proposing a motion, which would have many willing takers for the opposition.
A suggestion: 'This house believes that the meritocracy is reliant on the assumption that ‘people are born equal in dignity, rights and potential’
(that could go anywhere )
Incidentally Magius, thanks. I’d only want you to oppose the first motion if you really sincerely believe it, and are confident that you can put together a coherent and persuasive case for the proposition. It also needs the full attention and effort of the ‘competitor/debator’.
Any takers, for either motions? (I think the afterlife one could be interesting. If you know any articulate religious leaders or believers, do invite them on to propose, and get them in touch with me.)
Hey, Hey!!! Now this is a surprise! You may have noticed that shortly after suggesting this thing I disappeared and ceased to take an active involvement! This is because I threw the topic into the help and suggestions forum and forgot that I had it mentioned here. This is a pleasant and funny surprise at the same time.
It has taken a completly different turn to that which I originally intended. Seeing as I am a member of the site for the politics and economics section as opposed to the philosophy (note that I have absolutly no posts under the philosophy section) this suggestion was originally based around politics and economics although I failed to mention it. Sorry.
The way that the debate about the establishment of this has gone about is exactly the way that I intended it to go for the “decision not discussion.” Note that no pols where taken and everyone was happy with the final product. This is proof in itself to the ability of us to come to a worked solution. The idea that a final product is unattainable only really held strong for the topics of philosophy, which is to be expected as that is the nature of the subject.
I now wish to resort back to my original suggestion so that we may, as was done with this discusion, come to decision which all parties invloved are happy with (ie steer clear of philosophy.) I can as of next october or so get extremly good access to the net and would be more than happy to regulate it. The primary objective would be to avoid the use of votes as I always feel that these leave people unhappy and lead to resentment. The use of two different sides is also contrary to the objective as it is to find a compremise where people are free to change their opinion as new info comes to light. Naturally, new info can always be found and thus peoples opinion can always be canged and for this reason I suggest the a date be set for a decision to be found. This can be versatile depending on how the discusion is going but ultimatly a final date encourages people to decide as opposed to continually dancing around the topic.
I’ll be gone for about 6 weeks so I’ll be back the to see how the DISCUSSION is going! C ya then!
)