I'd be very interested to debate about the existence of God. If ever, this will be a first time for me to go on a one-on-one and I look forward to the experience.
I would be interested....though this debate may be better off not following the "Assigned Sides" format, as those who believe would have a very hard time dismissing their faith....and vice versa. I would choose to explain the "No God" side.
Will this be a debate about the existence of a god in general or OP wants the debate to be limited on a specific one ?
And I'll be on the other side. Let me just read the rules on how to go about this. Like I've said, I've never done this before.
The existence of a Judeo-Christian God is a belief based on Biblical and handed-down history in the form of several religions. Proof of existence using any scientific method is not possible. That being said, proof there is no GOD is also a belief because, in the end, we do not know where we came from, where exactly we are in the Universe or even where the Universe came from in the first place. I think you will find this kind of debate pretty futile.
That could be a problem. One could argue quite persuasively for a First Cause, proving that yours is the correct version is infinitely more difficult.
Should this debate be enacted, it will be perpetual as there is no possible way to prove either side 100%. A creator entity could exists, but is extremely unlikely. Quite simply put, I can supply data that disputes the Bible(s) all day, but this does not remove the possibility of the creator being....it only proves the books are a man made and flawed early novel. I can easily point out the plethora of God myths and religions that claim they "Know" the one true God....thereby removing the possibility there is but "One True God", this however does not prove there was no creator. If it is understood going in this is a no win debate on both sides....okay. Entertainment is a worthwhile pursuit in itself.
The debate would've been about the evidence for the existence of God. In another forum, the way they did it was to put a limit on how long the debate would last (numbers of posts), only the two debators can alternately post on that specific thread (other posters create their separate thread to discuss the debate - without giving any aid to the debators. Debators can and must specifically cite their sources. Sources must be verifiable - therefore only on-line sources. Length of each post can be decided not to exceed numbers of words. As to the "winner," that will be a hard one unless we can find impartial judges. How winner is determined should be worked out and specified. To get the viewers involved in a way, we can also have a poll who they think won. There would be philosophy, historicity and science involved with my arguments that will provide evidence for the existence of God, and that God is the Judeo-Christian God. Do you think it's worth a try, or a waste of our time?
Yes, I have, and in fact created, ran, and participated in the intiial version of the "True Debates" on another site in my role as Moderator there. The concept was similar to that which you propose here and was quite a success, in fact I believe they are still using it there. As for this particular debate......I'll be your Huckleberry. It seems time to define a rule set, and allow the masses to gather for the show.
Yes -True Debates - that's where I saw it. Oh boy....you're well-experienced!!! Maybe you can create the same thing here?
Pointless debate, as the burden of proof fals on those who make the claim. AKA those who claim there is a god . As we all know there isnt a signe shred of evidence supporting the excistance of god. You might as well debate if santa is real .
I would argue that god as portrayed in the bible is not god in reality, care to debate? rules being that all parties are respectful, timely in replies and on topic.
I'm still thinking about the rules and prcedures that would make this different from regular threads. It has to be a one-on-one with nobody else posting on that debate thread....how do we ensure that? Btw, are you taking the position that the real God is not the Biblical God? Is that different from, "Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
The only reason it worked there was moderator capability.....as it was clear to all inappropriate input would be removed immediately. Basically, each debate has a MOD assigned to it, and requires a bit of resource effort on the staff...fun, but a pain in the A$$ to run. Duplicating the system here might be a bit burdensome on the Staff here, and they likely have enough to do already. A new system should be created.
Would it be feasible to have a lock out system so only the challenger and the challenged can respond to each other, with a set time length of the debate . .when that is reached a poll type capability to gather votes from those who have followed the debate and declare a winner from those results .. actually on second thoughts not a good idea with the poll as it would only require one of the participants to gather their own supporters to vote regardless of the merit of their points. It would still be good to see a section where one on one debates could take place though.
One feasible option (which worked elsewhere)...involves self moderation within the debate thread. Basically a matter of actively ignoring input from outside. We simply replied with this: ..................... To any outside input.
Sounds workable, I'd also add that if either of the two debating reply to or use the outside comment in any other way automatically loses the debate.
Well I like it, there are one or two I'd like to get in a one on one situation without them being able to bolster support and go off topic .. problem is even if I challenged them they would ignore it.
try this.... http://www.politicalforum.com/debates-contests/317932-i-challenge-you-duel.html#post1063002957