DEBATE; Ecstremevenom vs. Scotty.

Hi Folks,

Ecstremevenom has stepped in to fill the late Chicken McRoyal's shoes. I've had much interest from individuals wanting to be judges. Please post expressions of interest. I shall pick two judges, and Ecstreme another two. Those four shall nominate a fifth.

Ecstreme, perhaps you would like to suggest a topic?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hi Folks,

Ecstremevenom has stepped in to fill the late Chicken McRoyal's shoes. I've had much interest from individuals wanting to be judges. Please post expressions of interest. I shall pick two judges, and Ecstreme another two. Those four shall nominate a fifth.

Ecstreme, perhaps you would like to suggest a topic?

Allow me to introduce myself. I go by many names, although you should feel free to address me as Doctor. I am the reigning champion of RHP Debates, as of March 2006, where I displayed superior skills against a worthy opponent in the realm of ideas and arguments. Those same skills which I leveraged to win the title will I bring to bear in judging the contest at hand. I shall identify and critique each competitor's presentation with respect to critical thinking, command of language, and argument design. I shall carry out blind judgment, free of prejudice for the competitors' positions, although I will appeal to logic and rationality as foundational criteria forming the very fulcrum of the scales. If that is the sort of judge you seek, and those are the criteria against which you wish to be competently judged, then you will appoint me to the panel.

Dr. S

idk anybody here so idk any judges to pick, and i thought the topic was christianity vs atheists, trying to prove which is right

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
idk anybody here so idk any judges to pick, and i thought the topic was christianity vs atheists, trying to prove which is right

LOL, how are you looking at those two? Is the topic is there a god,
gods, or God, or are both belief systems? What do you mean by what
you just said? 🙂 This will be good and the debate has not even
started yet.
😲
Kelly

the origonal thing was he was supposed to prove that there is no god, and that royalitystatement was supposed to prove that god does exist and the bible is true etc.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
the origonal thing was he was supposed to prove that there is no god, and that royalitystatement was supposed to prove that god does exist and the bible is true etc.

No it wasn't.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Allow me to introduce myself. I go by many names, although you should feel free to address me as Doctor. I am the reigning champion of RHP Debates, as of March 2006, where I displayed superior skills against a worthy opponent in the realm of ideas and arguments. Those same skills which I leveraged to win the title will I bring to bear in judging t ...[text shortened]... ainst which you wish to be competently judged, then you will appoint me to the panel.

Dr. S

While I don't have credentials as impressive as Scribs here, I have been on a college level dabate team, and would consider myself an expert in critical thinking, strong in use of language and argument design. And even though I admit to being the good doctor's inferior in overall debating ability, I would like to point out that judging is not neccesarily done best by the best debator. I can likewise be impartial and decisions will be based entirely on logic and rational argument. I leave all my personal opinions at the door, and start by assuming nothing. So, for example with this argument. I would not assume the Bible is neccesarily the word of God, as many do, but I would not assume it was false either. I would have to be persuaded one way or another, or leave it as irrelevant. Within the argument, I am willing to act as though I know very little outside what is presented by the debators. If I know something said was false, but the opponent refuses to point it out, and it is not obvious from outright logic, I will have to pretend I do not know, so as not to bring my (extensive) knowledge into the decisions, which would likely favor one side over another.

I will attempt to be as fair and unbiased as possible, but I have a perchant for logic, so illogical arguments will not persuade me.

If this is the kind of judge you want, choose me.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
the origonal thing was he was supposed to prove that there is no god, and that royalitystatement was supposed to prove that god does exist and the bible is true etc.

I'm a Born again Spirit filled Christian and I don't think anyone, but
God can prove God is real, for that matter no one can prove the
negative either. I'd say the subject really needs to be laid out quite
clearly what it is that going to be debated. Maybe I missed the first
part of the discussion.
Kelly

I'm a hard @ss when it comes to being critical of other people's posts, I like to think that as a judge I would be more a Paedrus' knife, than a descriptive spatula. My background is a private classical educationan HND in zoology, currently doing a degree in philosophy, weak atheist and I hold a physicalist view of the world. Strangely enough I am also a christened and confirmed Christian in the Church of England and was bought up in a Christian school for most of my childhood (although I now renounce this of course). My focus on the need for critical reasoning will make me a useful addition to the judges panel, thus it is that I volunteer my services.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Allow me to introduce myself. I go by many names, although you should feel free to address me as Doctor. I am the reigning champion of RHP Debates, as of March 2006, where I displayed superior skills against a worthy opponent in the realm of ideas and arguments.

I only remember you losing against rwingett, in a topic where your position was much easier to defend.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No it wasn't.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=48209

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No it wasn't.

Shut up

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
the origonal thing was he was supposed to prove that there is no god, and that royalitystatement was supposed to prove that god does exist and the bible is true etc.

I would not debate this topic. As Kelly rightly points out, there can be no absolute proof for or against God, all we can really get down to is opinions. Science is completely unable to make any judgement on the existance or non-existance of god. I am willing to debate anything with a physical basis - such as biblical creationism vs. scientific gradualism, or "flood or no flood". Something like that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I would not debate this topic. As Kelly rightly points out, there can be no absolute proof for or against God, all we can really get down to is opinions. Science is completely unable to make any judgement on the existance or non-existance of god. I am willing to debate anything with a physical basis - such as biblical creationism vs. scientific gradualism, or "flood or no flood". Something like that.

oh, that was kinda the topic i wanted to debate lol