One-on-one Debates

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm looking to do one or two one-on-one public RF debates.

Is anyone interested in debating against me in a one-on-one debate in the One-on-One RF Debate forum, and if so, what should the subject be and which side would you take?

 

[Viker]

Morbid Angel. Greatest death metal band or overrated. I'll take the position of overrated, even though I am a fan.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Morbid Angel. Greatest death metal band or overrated. I'll take the position of overrated, even though I am a fan.

That'd be a challenging one. It isn't my style of music, so I'd be playing Devil's Advocate for my side the whole way.

 

[Heyo]

I'm looking to do one or two one-on-one public RF debates.

Is anyone interested in debating against me in a one-on-one debate in the One-on-One RF Debate forum, and if so, what should the subject be and which side would you take?

Do we have anything important which we disagree about? I can't remember. If there is something I'm ready to debate my point.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do we have anything important which we disagree about? I can't remember. If there is something I'm ready to debate my point.

We hardly ever butt heads in the way where I respond to your post in argument, or you do the same with mine.

One thing which I might disagree with, that you may have once stated, was that "Agnosticism is the most logical position". As a non-theist, it could get interesting if I argued against agnosticism from the approach of a non-theist.

 

[Heyo]

We hardly ever butt heads in the way where I respond to your post in argument, or you do the same with mine.

One thing which I might disagree with, that you may have once stated, was that "Agnosticism is the most logical position". As a non-theist, it could get interesting if I argued against agnosticism from the approach of a non-theist.

I did state that (probably with exactly those words) and I stand by it. I think atheists would upgrade their position (which isn't even a position) to Agnosticism if they only pondered the question a bit deeper. (Though most are not interested in that.)
If you are interested and prepared, lets talk conditions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I did state that (probably with exactly those words) and I stand by it. I think atheists would upgrade their position (which isn't even a position) to Agnosticism if they only pondered the question a bit deeper. (Though most are not interested in that.)
If you are interested and prepared, lets talk conditions.

Sounds good.

Okay, conditions. I think that for the Burden of Proof, it should be whomever brings up a subject first. So if one introduces a new subject, they have to try to prove it. So by introducing a new subject, that person remains the positive side, and the other person the negative, for that subject / talking point. What do you think?

 

[Heyo]

Sounds good.

Okay, conditions. I think that for the Burden of Proof, it should be whomever brings up a subject first. So if one introduces a new subject, they have to try to prove it. So by introducing a new subject, that person remains the positive side, and the other person the negative, for that subject / talking point. What do you think?

Fair. And as I made the positive statement, I'll have to shoulder the burden.

(I should really start doing something productive now as I'm already too long on RF. I'll post my initial statement later, maybe in the evening (its 8:00 am now) and invite you.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Fair. And as I made the positive statement, I'll have to shoulder the burden.

(I should really start doing something productive now as I'm already too long on RF. I'll post my initial statement later, maybe in the evening (its 8:00 am now) and invite you.)

Sounds good.

 

[vulcanlogician]

This seems interesting. I'll be sure to tune in when you guys start.

IDEA: You should (if possible) get an agnostic atheist and a regular atheist to write questions for you guys to debate about. There's a reason the question/answer format is often employed in debates. It lends the entire debate structure. Rather than just meandering arguments that can go in circles, a Q & A format continually puts the debate back on the rails.

Just food for thought. It might not be the kind of thing OP or Heyo are interested in... and if that's the case, I get it. Free form debates can be well-structured too. And maybe that's more you guys's cup of tea.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This seems interesting. I'll be sure to tune in when you guys start.

IDEA: You should (if possible) get an agnostic atheist and a regular atheist to write questions for you guys to debate about. There's a reason the question/answer format is often employed in debates. It lends the entire debate structure. Rather than just meandering arguments that can go in circles, a Q & A format continually puts the debate back on the rails.

Just food for thought. It might not be the kind of thing OP or Heyo are interested in... and if that's the case, I get it. Free form debates can be well-structured too. And maybe that's more you guys's cup of tea.

Though your idea may be a bit different than what I'm generally familiar with, I might have another possible idea, too....

There's a section on RF to create a 'comments' section for other posters to comment on the one-on-one debate. I could start that thread after the debate begins, and tell people if they want any questions answered by me or @Heyo within the debate and in more of a debate format, to pitch/introduce them in the comments thread.

Just a possible idea. Would that be something you or others would like?

 

[blü 2]

Though your idea may be a bit different than what I'm generally familiar with, I might have another possible idea, too....

There's a section on RF to create a 'comments' section for other posters to comment on the one-on-one debate. I could start that thread after the debate begins, and tell people if they want any questions answered by me or @Heyo within the debate and in more of a debate format, to pitch/introduce them in the comments thread.

Just a possible idea. Would that be something you or others would like?

Yes, this threatens to be interesting.

I'm of the view that there's one truly basic issue, namely supernaturalism v materialism.

I've never seen a materialist say to a supernaturalist, or a supernaturalist say to a materialist, "Well I guess that makes sense now I think about it, You've persuaded me I've been wrong."

Perhaps that will happen here (fights to keep face straight) ...

 

[vulcanlogician]

Just a possible idea. Would that be something you or others would like?

I think it will be an interesting debate no matter what format you two agree upon. I have no preference one way or the other. But I have seen freeform one on one debate threads veer off the road before. And I was even involved in one such debate. So I was more giving some advice. Take it or leave it. I'm not invested in the debate happening in any given way.

If you decide to open questions up to forum users, I DO recommend that you and Heyo sift through them and agree on what questions are useful and on-topic. Plus it'd be conducive to quality debate if you had some time to read the questions and prepare something of an answer before the debate transpires.

Like I said, it was just a suggestion. I've also seen freeform debates transpire without a hitch. But adding a lil' structure often helps things like this. (In my experience.)

 

[Heyo]

@Snow White, @vulcanlogician, @blü 2:

Snow White vs. Heyo: Agnosticism is the Most Logical Position
is now online.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

We're pretty far into the debate between me and @Heyo , most likely.

Something I learned from the more prolific one-on-one debates is that when it comes to the viewers of the debate, there's pretty much a mixed set of emotions. Some will say one's opinions are quality, and some will say they are not. The feedback from others I've received on my debate with @Heyo has been interesting.

Anyway, I just wanted to express, that I might have the time for one more one-on-one debate right now, should anyone be interested. If you want to have a debate, please name a subject or a list of subjects, in this thread, and which side you would take.

 

[icehorse]

well.. you know..

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

well.. you know..

I'm afraid I don't know.

 

[Heyo]

I'm afraid I don't know.

So I did convince you? You've become an Agnostic?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So I did convince you? You've become an Agnostic?

I've become an Agnostic Atheist. And a good part of it was our debate. As well as something that I read, but mostly our debate.

I realize that Agnostic Atheist isn't your current position, but I still think that there's enough evidence or lack thereof to just dismiss gods. But, after I let things sink in, I realized that some of the philosophy in Agnosticism was valid. And also like the next step if one wants more challenging debates and more challenging philosophical thinking.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Still looking to do one more one-on-one debate.

You name the subject.