jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (66 posts)

Debate - atheism vs theism - format

  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Gardner Osagie vs Mark Knowles (consultations allowed)

    Osagie proposes:

    "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."

    Knowles is prepared to refute this and argue the evolutionary viewpoint as is appropriate.

    We have several judges nominated, and now need an agreed format. Sufidreamer has suggested this:



    And I suggest our next step should be to agree a format and fill in these blanks.

    This is a new thread so we can start clean.

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Affirmative always goes first(that would be me)

      Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmative

      Then the Negative presents their case

      Then the Affirmative get to  cross examine and ask the negative questions

      The Affirmative does their rebuttal (no new arguments) just refutation

      Then the Negative gives rebuttal (no new arguments)  and closing

      Then the Affirmative closes

      Then you guys vote.

  2. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Great, I was just reading the site. 

    I suggest a format that is one on one.  Since you have been challenged.  I would suggest allowing truth to ask the first question.

    The think a reasonable number of responses should be less than five with each response being less than 500 words.

  3. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Sandra - Gardner is making the affirmative statement in this case as he declined to accept my affirmative statement.
    Give me a few moments and I will type out my proposal for the format.

  4. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    1. The topic of the debate. Theism vs atheism. Specifically:

    "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."
    2. The opponents:

    a. Gardner Osagie, Texas, USA - in favor of the biblical position.
    b. Knowles, Newbury, England. - In favor of the evolutionary viewpoint.

    3. The scope of the debate: specifically to argue the pros and cons of biblical vs evolutionary development of humans.

    4. The length of the debate. I suggest a maximum of 3 rounds.

    5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. As Gardner is taking the positive viewpoint, I suggest he goes first, and we take turns after.

    6. The maximum length of each statement. I suggest a maximum of 1500 words in each statements, a maximum of 15 questions of max 100 words each with 250 words allowed for each reply to each question.

    7.The time limit between statements.  Max 3 days after answering all questions (1 week max for questions - both asked and answered)

    8.The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.  I suggest quotes from reputable sources will be allowed up to a max of 30% of the total statement. Judges decision will be final as to acceptability.

    9. Starting date. I will be away from the computer starting Thursday until Monday next week. So - Monday is good for me.

    10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe. I suggest no personal attacks and no heckling from the cheap seats. smile

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is this agreed on?

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, Monday then

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

          Looking forward to your opening statement.

          We do need to list the judges and get them to arrange a voting system. Plus arrange some sort of complaints procedure for obviously false or disreputable sources.

          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            If each questions is allowed a week, then the judges should have enough time to fact check anything in question.

            We could open a thread specifically for anything the participants find in question.

            Does that work?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That sounds like a good idea. I was more thinking about complaints against sources that are actually personal opinions rather than factual information.

              1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
                GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Wait a minute, We both have personal opinions. There are facts and interpretations of the facts. Don't blur the line. That why we are having this debate in the first place evolutionist have erased the line between facts and interpretations of facts.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No - I mean using references that are purely personal opinions posing as facts. Please do not start the debate just yet. Monday is soon enough. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    How about this: no blog source will be allowed.

              2. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, you could open with that for the judges to rule whether or not a source will be allowed.  So be specific.

                As it is, both think each others sources are opinion so...

                1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
                  GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Let them both stand.

        2. profile image0
          B52 Bomberposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What time Monday?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That is up to Gardner. I am on GMT+1 - I have a week for questions. He has a week for answers, then I have 3 days for my rebuttal statement.

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's near 5pm here now.

  5. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    6. I suggest a maximum of 1500 words in each statements, a maximum of 15 questions of max 100 words each with 250 words allowed for each reply to each question.

    Please be more clear.

    The opening argument is no more than 1500 words. 

    We'll need another format for the proposed questions. I suggest, at the end of each opening argument. It closes with a question presented in less than 100 words.

    Each has then one chance to respond (so think clearly about what you write) to the question ie: Mark will answer, gardner can rebuttal both answering with less than 250 words.

    The 3 response is in closing.  The total number of responses to the OA is 3 and each participant must wait for the judges final decision before the OA to the next question is presented.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      More clear:

      Three rounds of:

      1. 1500 word statement by proponent.

      2. 15, 100 word questions from the opponent.

      3. 15 250 word answers from proponent.

      4. 1500 word rebuttal from opponent.

      5. 15, 100 word questions from the proponent

      6. 15, 250 word answers from opponent.

      Make sense?

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That seems fine too

      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay so you are saying that all the questions that proponent intends to ask must be presented in his opening argument.

        The opponent will have the chance to answer each of the 15 questions with no more than 250 word answers per questions.

        -the proponent/opponent cannot interfere until the opponent is done-

        The Opponent will then make 1500 rebuttal, list 15 questions with less than 100 words each.

        And the proponent then get's his chance to answer all the questions with less than 250 words.

        Got it.  Sounds good to me.

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Okay

  6. GardnerOsagie profile image59
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    This seems okay, but the title of human life for evolution you must start with some ape like creature it's a continued regression that will lead back to origins. How should we reconcile this.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Easy - we debate the agreed proposal:

      "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."

      And see where it takes us.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay.

  7. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    8.The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.  I suggest quotes from reputable sources will be allowed up to a max of 30% of the total statement. Judges decision will be final as to acceptability.

    As per the other thread, reputability has been denied and it is up to the opponent to dispel the argument. 

    But 30% seems reasonable.  You do mean that 1 quote cannot be used in excess.  Statements such as, "you cannot prove a negative" or "there must have been a life force present before evolution could occur."  In other words, statements that cannot be reasonably debated.

    Is this what you mean?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No - I mean using quotes from outside sources can be a maximum of 30% of the total argument. Meaning we must use our own words. So - with 1500 words in an argument - I can only use a maximum of 450 words quoted from another source.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, got it.

  8. Presigo profile image60
    Presigoposted 7 years ago

    To say that this is a waste of time is like saying the ocean has water in it. Not one of you will change your mind. In fact the rhetoric will only serve to harden hearts even more. I find it heartbreaking that this could even take place

    1. XTASIS profile image61
      XTASISposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And you are ?......

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wow - Your heart is easily broken. sad

  9. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Sort of.

    The proponent makes a statement
    The opponent asks questions
    The proponent answers
    The opponent makes a rebuttal statement
    The proponent asks questions
    The opponent answers

    End of round.

    big_smile

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can I suggest "End of Debate", This should not be dragged out for weeks.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Whaaaat!  What a waste of my time.

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, you don't understand. I want to everything you stated, but in 1 one debate not separate rounds of repeats. Understand?

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Three rounds seems reasonable for such a debate. I am sure I will raise questions that you feel the need to answer properly in the next round and vice versa.

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Fine. Calm down, Sandra cool

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Okay but that could turn messy and hard to follow.

      I think stating all your questions first would be more ideal because this would allow the opponent to rebuttal in a more organized fashion.

      The way you have it listed is leading.  The proponent should be able to ask a direct question first otherwise you are free to pick out any part of his statement and refute it which could lead not an argument instead of a debate. 

      Just trying to be fair here.

      However, if you will allow the proponent to make his first statement and ask his first question then okay.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No - this is realistic. I cannot ask questions until after a statement has been made. And he will have the same opportunity.

        The proponent makes a statement
        The opponent asks questions
        The proponent answers

        The opponent makes a rebuttal statement
        The proponent asks questions
        The opponent answers

        @Jen

        15 x 100 word questions (1500)
        15 x 250 word  answers (3750)

        Seems fair to have more answering time?

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Okay but I am pretty good at leading questions and am trying to give garden a fair shot but if he decides that this works for him then I shall shut up. big_smile

        2. jenblacksheep profile image84
          jenblacksheepposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think that depending on the question, 250 word answers could be too short. I dno, perhaps that's the challenge.

          Is the debate going to just be in one thread in the Forums? Will the judges be allowed to make comments in that thread?

  10. jenblacksheep profile image84
    jenblacksheepposted 7 years ago

    I think you'll have too much to say to answer 15 questions with 250 words. I'd suggest that either:
    You must specify that the questions are to be very specific
    OR have fewer questions but more general (more words to answer them)
    OR that the overall number of words is (15x250=)3750, but you can choose how to allocate those words.

    ??

  11. pylos26 profile image76
    pylos26posted 7 years ago

    I volunteer for a judgeship on the christian side... "pylos the holy."

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      pass

      1. pylos26 profile image76
        pylos26posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        rejection!!!...how could i have been so foolish to expect more from a good christian.

  12. jenblacksheep profile image84
    jenblacksheepposted 7 years ago

    A source should count if it is written by an authority in that field.
    If the source has no author and no year of publication then you can't use it.
    If you use Wikipedia you will be SHOT! but i guess you knew that.

    Perhaps we need a list of rules for what counts for a source.  No debating the sources, and you can't go back and edit it out. If either person breaks the rules then their quote is disregarded.

  13. GardnerOsagie profile image59
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    I'm off, see ya Monday!

  14. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    Secondary and tertiary sources should quote their primary source also. Secondary and tertiary sources are not considered legitimate in many debates, but it depends on how formal you want to make this.

    I'm looking very forward to this read as it develops. Best to both and judges.

  15. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    If we only quote from such legitimate sources, then this is a cakewalk for atheists isn't it?

  16. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    I'm already dismayed. This is not starting off as a theism/atheism debate, but as a Young Earth Creationism/Evolution debate. I don't think the Young Earth Creationist position will stand, and I'm pretty sure that atheists will interpret the Evolutionist position's victory as a refutation of theism, Judaism, Christianity, or any of its fundamental tenets.

    Young Earth Creationism is not a tenet of most Christian denominations, so casting this as a theist/atheist debate isn't really all that appropriate, in my humble opinion.

    1. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The debate will not focus of the age of the earth, at all. If that if that is your intention mark, forget it. But I hope he will stick to the terms of the debate.

      Val, being a YEC myself I have no problem defending it, but you'd be surprised how many other Christians hold that stance. As the evolutionary deception grows, more people are becoming more aware of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

  17. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Yeah there is a pile of evidence for Young Earth Creationism.

    1. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes sir and the truth is too often suppressed because evolutionists need their timegod because without it evolution looks dumb, so  Christians feel forced to compromise, Or “look stupid” It’s sad sad

  18. Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 7 years ago

    Lord Please make me a patient man!
    But for the sake of Logic, Science and Practicality....
    "Please Hurry!"
    lol

    Good Luck to Our Gladiators
    And those about to die!
    lol

  19. quietnessandtrust profile image60
    quietnessandtrustposted 7 years ago

    I wanna be the word count checker so that I can issue penalties for overages. mad smile

  20. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    The debate is starting out as requested by Gardner.

    This is his suggested question and the subject he wishes to debate.
    The proposition is:

    "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."

    Gardner is a Young earth creationist and takes the bible literally - and I assume he wishes to argue that in his statement - seeing as this is a lot of his basis for attacking the evolutionary viewpoint.

    I have  no problem with that - but I have been accused of "refusing to debate" and have made this challenge specifically to defend the evolutionary vs literal biblical standpoint.

    We shall see where his first statement goes.

    I see on this thread tth has already started attacking evolution and making his case for a young earth - so I assume that will be part of his plan of battle. Seeing as it appears that YEC is one of the proofs he has for the bible being a better explanation than evolution.

    And seeing as questions about the science behind old earth evolution often form the basis for his proof of the validity of the bible - I fully expect and am prepared to defend that position.

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image59
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So are we debating the age of the earth or evolution?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        We are debating this statement:

        "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."

        You are making the opening statement, so you will dictate the tone and direction.

        1. profile image0
          B52 Bomberposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Are you guys starting today, I thought Monday.Or is this still Preliminaries?

        2. profile image60
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just curious, does the above statement imply that the theory of evolution is well understood by all parties?

  21. jenblacksheep profile image84
    jenblacksheepposted 7 years ago

    You should debate whether the Earth (universe/humanity) was created by God as set out in the Bible or if there is another theory that better explains it.

  22. StephenVagus profile image61
    StephenVagusposted 7 years ago

    Arguing on the Internet.

  23. kess profile image60
    kessposted 7 years ago

    Interesting start,
    I pity that guy,

  24. glendoncaba profile image82
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    To gardner, take a look at the following thread:  It might just help:

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/16681#top

    That particular OP framed his topic "Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring", shall we say, interestingly. smile

    A bit long but worth the read.

    1. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks

 
working