I would like to make a fairly rigorous debate. The claim is that: “the Skull has at least one extraordinary factor”. Our exhibit will be any claims made about the skull other than our own and their citations leading anywhere so-called authoritative.
Competitor A must point out evidence that is difficult to explain or points to something extraordinary. The challenger must reduce all attempts to prove an extraordinary factor as a consequence of something fairly unordinary. In addition, the challenger will have continuous opportunity to add other points to show where cheap attempts were made at exaggeration or forgery inside the exhibit. Let me explain the process we would undergo.
The debate would progress in a series of very small points post by post. Competitor A pitches, Competitor B tries to bat out the pitch. Competitor B then pitches, competitor A tries to bat out the pitch Competitor A pitches . . . full circle ad infinitum. If you have things to add in a post that cannot follow in suit (ie: outside “bat - pitch” format), then do not add it to the post. Instead, make a comment such as “this relates to article B to be announced.”
Opening speeches must briefly summarize what major factors makes the skull extraordinary or ordinary. Closing speeches cover all those extra quips we were going to add (because we couldn’t add them inside the bat-pitch format).
Judges are allowed to add pressure during the debate. For example: (A) " Mr. X, hurry up and make your point" or (B) “Mr. Y, you’ve made your point, now stop dragging it”.
I am willing to be either Competitor A or a Judge. Competitor A is ideally someone who’s looked at the skull and thinks at least there’s “something weird about it.” Competitor B is ideally someone whom does have past accomplishments into researching a subject (heck, even a high school essay). They don’t have to be well researched on the skull. Finally, a Judge is ideally someone with a scientific background of some kind. A BSc would be good. Some sort of post-secondary study would be fine.
Our focus in the debate is about the science and not any other esoteric or religious concept.
I will outline this debate in a clearer and briefer outline soon. First I would like someone to volunteer as a judge or competitor.
What do you mean by “extraordinary”? In some sense, it’s obvious that the skull is extraordinary, as evidenced by this thread, or the fact that most skulls don’t warrant names like “The XYZ Skull”. To avoid being obtuse, I must take extraordinary to mean “paranormal”, “supernatural”, or at least “challenging to mainstream understandings of the world and our place in it”; is that the right interpretation?
Even still, this seems a somewhat subjective claim. Couldn’t participants divide on whether they find that a case such as this demands a complete scientific explanation? e.g. it seems valid for competitor B to say, “Well, sure it’s unusual, but so are conjoined twins and third nipples, so what?” Is that the direction this you’re looking for this debate to go? If not, could you clarify?
Carleas: an excellent set of questions. So let’s be more specific about extraordinary. Yes. I must convince the judge that it is beyond a “third nipple.” In other words: Beyond anthropology in the natural world. Beyond evolutionary mutation. Here’s a few examples I would settle for.
“Wow, someone is able to fake carbon dating and insert weird chemicals into tissue as yet never before demonstrated. Whomever the hoaxer is, we should get a hold of their unique technology!”
“Wow, somebody from a millennium ago did some human genome splicing. Guess we had forgotten how to do that for a while.”
“Wow. Everything is a fucking illusion, this couch is an illusion, because if you can fake a dead alien skull enough to convince a geneticist, I guess you can fake anything in the world.”
Anyhowww . . . yes Paranormal would suffice. But I’ll even settle for someone convincing me that it’s a hoax that was hard to do. It’s too easy for people to guffaw it when there is little motivation. Now someone in a challenge will have to really get technical about it in order to win. Seeing as you posted Carleas, are you considering volunteering for a role at all?
Carleas, if you would be willing to reconsider about paraphrasing the Wikipedia article. Some portions of the article I’ve tried to modify myself, and so has Lloyd Pye. He even told me so. But the skeptical restraint is too powerful. They don’t only question, they refuse to allow the other notions from his website into its domain. Therefore, you would make a fine opposition- if you agree to draw your knowledge from “the giant cloud of anything” as opposed to specifically the wikipedia article. Thus you’re not really changing the nature of your argument. You’re just . . . rendering the whole of your sources anonymous.
If Carleas and Pav are up for it, I’m anxious to draw up an outline and have it underway.
-You said “very small,” what’s very small for you? 200 words? I don’t want any fixed limits, just a general idea.
-How many? Does five each sound like enough/too many??
-24 hours to respond?
Could we make it 400 words and 72 hours? Just pulling for more, haha. If not, your recommendation is fine. If you’re happy with this arrangement, then it could look like this . . .
Proposition P: There is at least one extraordinary factor about the Starchild Skull (be it a technology more sophisticated than publically available, or a factor indicating that it could not have been a known species).
