Volunteer moderators required

Volunteer yourself.

Anyone who starts a thread requiring moderation
will put your name in brackets in thread title.

bbarr
LemonJello

have accepted.

I'm happy to assist in this experiment.

My only condition would be that the Frame of Reference of the debate be established first.

(Edit: If both parties chose as their "Common Ground" logic and science, that would be ideal, but you will hardly find that on this Forum!)

In other words, where is the common ground?

In matters of doctrinal differences, a debate would makes sense if both parties base their arguments on a source document whose authority both accept.

For example, in the Immacculate Conception thread, one side would say such a doctrine is not logically necessary (e.g. FMF) whilst the other side would say it is Church Doctrine, based on whatever, which is authoritative enough. End of story.

So for me the question would be on what basis could an objective third party conclude that a participant was making a spurious claim? What is the common point of departure?

Another example: sonship and RJH have had lengthy (and I do mean l e n g t h y debates on the interpretation of certain scriptures which both believe are God's Word. Although I may disagree with both of them, that would be a valid debate. But sonship and FMF's "debates" normally end with "I say and you say" stalemates.

Does this make any sense? Could one actually define such mutually acceptable parameters before a discussion?

Originally posted by CalJust
But sonship and FMF's "debates" normally end with "I say and you say" stalemates.

What exactly is wrong with a debate ending in stalemate?

Originally posted by CalJust
For example, in the Immacculate Conception thread, one side would say such a doctrine is not logically necessary (e.g. FMF) whilst the other side would say it is Church Doctrine, based on whatever, which is authoritative enough. End of story.

OK, if it will illustrate your point, suggest a source document whose authority both parties can accept and base their arguments on in the case of the "Immaculate Conception".

Originally posted by FMF
What exactly is wrong with a debate ending in stalemate?

Nothing - as long as "a good time was had by all".

😀

Originally posted by CalJust
Nothing - as long as "a good time was had by all".

😀

There are some people complaining that they are not having a good time of late. They should just ignore threads and posts by the people whose posts they don't like. Attempts to police or micro-manage the community's goings on will not work. There have been formalized debates here before and they have worked well. People should start threads and set terms of reference for them if they want to. If they work they work.

Originally posted by FMF
OK, if it will illustrate your point, suggest a source document whose authority both parties can accept and base their arguments on in the case of the "Immaculate Conception".

Well, my point is actually that since the one side bases its position on a strongly held religious conviction and not on logic or fact, such debates are pointless.

If, however, you and another atheist or agnostic would take the theory or doctrine of the IC and debate whether it makes sense or not within its broader context, that could be interesting. (Btw, just as an aside, I was part of a discussion with a Catholic recently who, sort-of tongue-in-cheek suggested that the IC of Mary is not enough, but one would have to postulate the IC of Mary's mother and grandmother, etc etc in order to remove the human DNA from the feminine side!)

As soon as one party claims speaking for God, there is no point in continuing UNLESS you also claim to speak for God!

Originally posted by FMF
There are some people complaining that they are not having a good time of late. They should just ignore threads and posts by the people whose posts they don't like. Attempts to police or micro-manage the community's goings on will not work. There have been formalized debates here before and they have worked well. People should start threads and set terms of reference for them if they want to. If they work they work.

All I can say is Amen to that.

Originally posted by CalJust
Well, my point is actually that since the one side bases its position on a strongly held religious conviction and not on logic or fact, such debates are pointless.

If, however, you and another atheist or agnostic would take the theory or doctrine of the IC and debate whether it makes sense or not within its broader context, that could ...[text shortened]... claims speaking for God, there is no point in continuing UNLESS you also claim to speak for God!

Well this was ~ in a way ~ the point I was trying make with my two posts on page 2 of the "Debate moderation" thread.

Originally posted by FMF
Well this was ~ in a way ~ the point I was trying make with my two posts on page 2 of the "Debate moderation" thread.

And I totally agree with you here

All I can say is that anything will be an improvement on the current state.
We are not going to make anything worse with this experiment!

With regard to parameters the mod can PM the OP for clarifdication or make their own call.

Mods ... you are God!

how would you do that?
can you remove posts on this forum?
can you mute someone?
can you mark a post in a pretty pink to mark it as waaaay offtopic. green for caustic insulting? blue for rambling? white for using youtubes filled with unsubstantiated nonsense?

if you can't, then we already moderate ourselves as much as we can. without muting rjhinds/dasa/whoever when they are off topic or use the same argument over and over without reacting to their opponents, how do you plan on moderating?

Originally posted by FMF
What exactly is wrong with a debate ending in stalemate?

nothing as long as both parties involved used the best arguments they had.

if dasa ignores everything you say and calls you a liar (because of course you agree with him, you just don't know it), that's not a debate

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how would you do that?
can you remove posts on this forum?
can you mute someone?
can you mark a post in a pretty pink to mark it as waaaay offtopic. green for caustic insulting? blue for rambling? white for using youtubes filled with unsubstantiated nonsense?

if you can't, then we already moderate ourselves as much as we can. without muting rjhinds ...[text shortened]... same argument over and over without reacting to their opponents, how do you plan on moderating?

Respect for the mod would be voluntary.

If nothing else it will reveal more about certain people's character.