Rules of Debate? How's this, punk!

Originally posted by whodey
So, in effect, rwingett gets to define socialism as well as who the historical Jesus was? Sounds fair to me. 😉

It seems to me that this is solely the first step, and it has to be done correclty as I mentioned earlier;
the second thing rwingett has to do is to prove that Jesus was really a socialist;

Is there a defined set of criteria for judging the debate or is it up to the judges to set up their individual set?

Originally posted by rwingett
I am fully aware of the constraints which I am under. I will ask you to critique my argument [b]after you have read it and not before. Assuming you end up being a judge at all.[/b]

Of course you are fully aware of the constraints, every decent debater is; I was just replying to whodey;

Being a "judge" over here or not, is meaningless. For everybody has to judge everything, here and everywhere, otherwise there is no understanding: no judgment, no decision for the issues of life😵

Originally posted by black beetle
For everybody has to judge everything, here and everywhere, otherwise there is no understanding: no judgment, no decision for the issues of life😵

That's not what Jesus said. 😵

Originally posted by Palynka
That's not what Jesus said. 😵

You bet Pal my pal😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there a defined set of criteria for judging the debate or is it up to the judges to set up their individual set?

I offered a lil set, you offer another😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there a defined set of criteria for judging the debate or is it up to the judges to set up their individual set?

The only requirement is that you be able to judge the debate impartially. The judges should be able set aside any preconceived notions on the topic to the extent possible and judge the debate solely on the content of the arguments presented. The judges will keep in mind that the burden of proof will fall upon me, but I ask that they not set that bar impossibly high. I should need to demonstrate my case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by rwingett
The only requirement is that you be able to judge the debate impartially. The judges should be able set aside any preconceived notions on the topic to the extent possible and judge the debate solely on the content of the arguments presented. The judges will keep in mind that the burden of proof will fall upon me, but I ask that they not set that bar impossibly high. I should need to demonstrate my case beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sounds to me right. But, in order to define the essence of your definition about "reasonable doubt", we should maybe follow these principles:

1. The debaters have to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor;

2. The debaters must not twist the scientific finds and evidence;

3. The debaters have to produce a fair theory based on common sens, facts and evidence;

4. Sophisms are not accepted as logical strings of thought;

5. The debate must not be seen as a means of a mental doctrine, which it has to be absorbed "as it is" in order to "free" the "people" from their so called "theological and/ or philosophical delusion". No sermons, just pure debate!

6. The accuracy of each debate has to cope with the need of each debater to be accurate at the exact level that he desires, at each exact string of his thoughts;

7. The text of each debate must not be seen as a tool that it can be used in order to promote a solution for problems that have arise or that are supposed to arise in the future;

8. Both debaters will have to survive severe criticism, therefore they must be well versed;

😵

Originally posted by black beetle
This sounds to me right. But, in order to define the essence of your definition about "reasonable doubt", we should maybe follow these principles:

1. The debaters have to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor;

2. The debaters must not twist the scientific finds and evidence;

s will have to survive severe criticism, therefore they must be well versed;

😵

The criterea of success or victory itself needs to be clearly defined also.

I.e. is victory about the proof of the topic or simply the best argument made irrespective of quality or effectiveness. In the extreme example we could see two poor arguments, but one was less poor than the other, and so wins.

I would suggest that both will be good of course, but the judges should look at the one vs. the other, rather than employing personal knowledge to assess the value of the posts, as it is the role of he posters to recognise errors or omissions in thier opponents post, and qualify it accordingly within thier own post.

Apologies if that as been suggested already!

The position of my debating opponent is still open. So far Josephw and Whodey have thrown their hat into the ring. If anyone else wants to be considered then speak up. We'll keep it open for another day or so.

Judge positions are still open as well.

Originally posted by rwingett
The position of my debating opponent is still open. So far Josephw and Whodey have thrown their hat into the ring. If anyone else wants to be considered then speak up. We'll keep it open for another day or so.

Judge positions are still open as well.

Jesus was a freeloader, not a Socialist. I'll debate ya!

Originally posted by divegeester
The criterea of success or victory itself needs to be clearly defined also.

I.e. is victory about the proof of the topic or simply the best argument made irrespective of quality or effectiveness. In the extreme example we could see two poor arguments, but one was less poor than the other, and so wins.

I would suggest that both will be good of c ...[text shortened]... nd qualify it accordingly within thier own post.

Apologies if that as been suggested already!

I think that the criteria I mentioned are a valid prerequisite of a decent judgment for any philosophical debate. If a debater sidesteps one or some or all of them, s/he will provide a strimg of thoughts based on poor arguments and thus s/he cannot be the "winner". On the other hand, if both texts are based on poor arguments, then both debaters will have fail regardless of the fact that one of the texts may be superior than the other.
Finally, the second debater is not oblidged to address all the issues mentioned by the first, for one of the techniques required for a strong debate is the direct dismissal of a part or of the whole of the text of the adversary and a straighforward process of another issues, which are considered accurate. And surely, in such a case, it is up to the "judge" to decide whether this "post the other" response is a valid technique under the exact circumstances or not!

I expect to see a fair "seeking of the truth" quest from two philosophers, not a silly challenge between two ill-considered, preoccupied fanatics. If I 'll get the chance to judge the debate I will bow to the debater that her/ his arguments make sense according to my criteria as I mentioned them -for this is anyway what I do in my everyday life
😵

Originally posted by rwingett
The position of my debating opponent is still open. So far Josephw and Whodey have thrown their hat into the ring. If anyone else wants to be considered then speak up. We'll keep it open for another day or so.

Judge positions are still open as well.

"So far Josephw and Whodey have thrown their hat into the ring."

It's Monday, 1/12/08, 1:20 pm. I first saw this thread, and read through it a few minutes ago.

I think, rwingett, that you either mistakenly named me as someone that has accepted the challenge, or it's me you really want to debate.

Either way I'm intimidated and terrified at the prospect of debating someone of your caliber in a debate such as this.

But, since you are so confident, I'll accept the challenge without conditions. I'll likely get thrashed, but it will be fun anyway.

To be honest, you should pick someone you think will offer the most challenge to your obviously superior intellect. That wouldn't be me. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"So far Josephw and Whodey have thrown their hat into the ring."

It's Monday, 1/12/08, 1:20 pm. I first saw this thread, and read through it a few minutes ago.

I think, rwingett, that you either mistakenly named me as someone that has accepted the challenge, or it's me you really want to debate.

Either way I'm intimidated and terrified at the l offer the most challenge to your obviously superior intellect. That wouldn't be me. 😉[/b]

I haven't chosen anyone. I thought you wanted the spot. Whodey expressed interest in it as well. There may be others yet who would like to try it. Once people have had a chance to see the thread then we'll see who is interested. Then I assume the interested parties would choose amongst themselves, presumably based on who would be the strongest debater.

If the truth be known, joseph, between you and Whodey, I would prefer Whodey took the spot.

Edit: My mistake. Looking back I see it was jaywill who wanted the spot, not you. So the current interested parties are jaywill and whodey. That lets you off the hook.

Originally posted by rwingett
I haven't chosen anyone. I thought you wanted the spot. Whodey expressed interest in it as well. There may be others yet who would like to try it. Once people have had a chance to see the thread then we'll see who is interested. Then I assume the interested parties would choose amongst themselves, presumably based on who would be the strongest debater.

...[text shortened]... not you. So the current interested parties are jaywill and whodey. That lets you off the hook.

No, no, no! I still want to be considered for the spot.

I would prefer that whodey gets it too, but only because I'm busy.


Jesus was a socialist. 🙄