A New Contest: Want to be a Debater?

[Crimson King]

I found this article, and the idea hit me: defend or destroy this argument.

http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html

Now, the article is HEAVILY slanted and loaded with flat our false information (there is proof of beneficial mutations, but this article claims there is no proof with no evidence).

Your job is to create an article backing up this article or refuting it WITH evidence. To enter, create a thread title "DHPG: [your title]". The deadline is Feb. 3rd. I will take in 5 of the best entries, at max.

During this month, you will defend your argument/side to everyone.

Let's hope this works...

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Well, I have a two problems with this.

Firstly, it is an article from a heavily biased website. If one simply scrolls down to the bottom of the page, on will see a banner that says, in large and imposing text, "NO MONKEY BUISINESS HERE". This is obviously a play on words against the theory of evolution.

Secondly, it touches on a very delicate topic. As we know, many of the members here are atheists, or at least agnostics. Seeing as how heavily biased this is, and how many sources there are to back up evolution, many people are bound to take the "Jesus' Advocate", and back up evolution. I highly doubt there will be many competent debaters for intelligent design. (See: Hooblah2YouToo)

Just my two cents.

 

[Sucumbio]

alright, I'll bite.

@indigo: it's a good idea, the PG are so dead right now, this at least provides a way for would-be debaters to enter the DH proper and get into those juicy discussions.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

alright, I'll bite.

@indigo: it's a good idea, the PG are so dead right now, this at least provides a way for would-be debaters to enter the DH proper and get into those juicy discussions.

I guess CK was right.

The PG is dead because no one wants to step their game up and start making new topics. I could speak volumes on this, but that would be for the other section, which is where said thoughts are.

For the record, I would beg to differ that this is the best idea Sucumbio, but that's another story...

Well, I have a two problems with this.

Firstly, it is an article from a heavily biased website. If one simply scrolls down to the bottom of the page, on will see a banner that says, in large and imposing text, "NO MONKEY BUSINESS HERE". This is obviously a play on words against the theory of evolution.

Secondly, it touches on a very delicate topic. As we know, many of the members here are atheists, or at least agnostics. Seeing as how heavily biased this is, and how many sources there are to back up evolution, many people are bound to take the "Jesus' Advocate", and back up evolution. I highly doubt there will be many competent debaters for intelligent design. (See: Hooblah2YouToo)

Just my two cents.

Larn2FF Spell Check. =P

Need to clear a few things up here...

Also doesn't matter whether or not the website is biased, as you are to "scavenger hunt" all the fail in the document. Logical fallacies would be an easy avenue of attack, then all the equivocal statements on "eviloution" would be the second. It's sad that I am not a PGer that can do this anymore, as I could whip something up in a few hours that could likely lower the boom. Not bragging or anything, but subscribing to rationalist YouTube channels will give you those abilities.

You also failed on another front here: Making (or at the very least, heavily implying) evolution=atheism or agnosticism. Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) shouldn't obfuscate reality--and if they are, then you are likely not going to find yourself in the DH anytime soon. Evolution, for all intents and purposes (and yes, I know I am simplifying things here, so bare with me), is a proven, demonstrable fact. Just because it may make some deist/theist types start bawwing on the boards doesn't change this point. There is nothing biased about this reality.

Oh, and did I also mention that ID is also a fail theory as well, shown to be nothing more than a cover up to teach creationism in schools? Oh, and Hooblah2u2 was nowhere near a competent debater on this subject. In fact, frame tearing by a number of people in the DH/PG (a lot of it from me, but CK had the Coup de grâce here) probably resulted in him not even posting on the DH or PG anymore (he made one "Me too" post on vouchers a week later, and never came back.)

So, the point remains: Religious beliefs should have no influence on people tearing this site out the GD frame. So, hop to it for great profit!

 

[Sucumbio]

I guess CK was right.

The PG is dead because no one wants to step their game up and start making new topics. I could speak volumes on this, but that would be for the other section, which is where said thoughts are.

For the record, I would beg to differ that this is the best idea Sucumbio, but that's another story...

Right about what?

It's dead because no one comes in here, lol. There's been some new topics, I make my argument, for or against, and that's about it. There are literally 4 maybe 5 people in here that were fairly promising, but now it's dwindled to like, 2.... and whatever new topics get created boil down into opinion debates, rather than realistic debate topics. Methinks not many posters on SWF are actual Debate Team members in school, nor have any formal training in debate.

As for stepping it up, well... yeah, the issue there for me is I rarely if ever have something I want to initiate debate on. As I said in the Center Stage, I much prefer entering into existing debates, rather than starting one. I did technically start one just a few days ago, but no one has replied, despite it being viewed several times. This either means a.) it's too hard a topic to debate b.) people are afraid to debate me on it c.) it's too boring a topic to be debated d.) people are just curious but don't actually want to debate, just lurk

Might be some other reasons I've not mentioned or thought of, but it's irrelevant, there's NO DEBATE going on in my thread, Ryan's made one that went by seemingly unnoticed, Dorsey made one that got like 3 responses and it died. Yeah, CK's approach isn't "the best" nor did he or anyone imply it is, but it's still a good idea. Anything beats this, the PG which is now a dust bowl with tumble weeds aplenty.

Besides which the current rules for entrance into the DH proper were under the assumptions that new DH members would need to be screened in order to keep stupid debate topics (like the ones in here mostly, lol) from cropping up and going out of control. now though? yeah there's just no one so instead you get a DH with less than 10 debates, and fewer debaters. At least with the admission of more people you can get more out of your debates, and you don't necessarily have to be someone who's good at making up new debate topics, just good at debating (like myself).

not to diminish all the hard work you did to get in, kazoo, cause that is a side effect of changing the rules, but just think of it as back then it was necessary and now, CK's new approach is seemingly just as necessary. Who knows, maybe no one but me makes a topic for this article. *shrug* we'll see what happens. In the meantime, I agree w/what you said in the DH topic on this matter. DH members should be the ones criticizing the merit of the work, not other PG members.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Right about what?

It's dead because no one comes in here, lol. There's been some new topics, I make my argument, for or against, and that's about it. There are literally 4 maybe 5 people in here that were fairly promising, but now it's dwindled to like, 2.... and whatever new topics get created boil down into opinion debates, rather than realistic debate topics. Methinks not many posters on SWF are actual Debate Team members in school, nor have any formal training in debate.

As for stepping it up, well... yeah, the issue there for me is I rarely if ever have something I want to initiate debate on. As I said in the Center Stage, I much prefer entering into existing debates, rather than starting one. I did technically start one just a few days ago, but no one has replied, despite it being viewed several times. This either means a.) it's too hard a topic to debate b.) people are afraid to debate me on it c.) it's too boring a topic to be debated d.) people are just curious but don't actually want to debate, just lurk

Might be some other reasons I've not mentioned or thought of, but it's irrelevant, there's NO DEBATE going on in my thread, Ryan's made one that went by seemingly unnoticed, Dorsey made one that got like 3 responses and it died. Yeah, CK's approach isn't "the best" nor did he or anyone imply it is, but it's still a good idea. Anything beats this, the PG which is now a dust bowl with tumble weeds aplenty.

Besides which the current rules for entrance into the DH proper were under the assumptions that new DH members would need to be screened in order to keep stupid debate topics (like the ones in here mostly, lol) from cropping up and going out of control. now though? yeah there's just no one so instead you get a DH with less than 10 debates, and fewer debaters. At least with the admission of more people you can get more out of your debates, and you don't necessarily have to be someone who's good at making up new debate topics, just good at debating (like myself).

not to diminish all the hard work you did to get in, kazoo, cause that is a side effect of changing the rules, but just think of it as back then it was necessary and now, CK's new approach is seemingly just as necessary. Who knows, maybe no one but me makes a topic for this article. *shrug* we'll see what happens. In the meantime, I agree w/what you said in the DH topic on this matter. DH members should be the ones criticizing the merit of the work, not other PG members.

Concerning what CK was right about: Nunya.

First, let's not get things twisted here: The "old" approach that you speak of is still the one in which you should get in. Unless CK made some sort of major change to the PG, the method I just mentioned will get you in the PG, without fail.

I've never been on a debate team in my life, and I took to the DH pretty well.

You will have to excuse for thinking that "I don't like making threads" as a pretty big john. I made eight threads before I could even get in, and I feel my debating is better as a result of it.

If you want to get people to view your threads and debate, here's a suggestion: Make better topics. If you need some inspiration, feel free to look @ my threads I made and you can see which direction to take your debating in. IMHO I don't think anyone should be let in the DH if you don't make several threads (unless you're GS.)

I also don't think it is necessary to let people in due to a lull in activity. When has it ever not been a PGer's personal responsibility to try to get in the DH, as opposed to freebies given to spur debate.

Also, please don't mention things you don't know too much about, like my journey into the DH. You got a few things wrong there, so yeah...

 

[Dre89]

Just a quick question-

I'd like to 'back' this article, not necessarily by saying that evolution is incorrect but by arguing that the Big Bang Theory is flawed, or at least that it is flawed unless some higher being was the first cause. I'll probably also like to include a small Intelligent Design argument as a side-dish.

Is this still relevant enough to count? I won't really be using the article's points for my argument though, I prefer to use anti-evolution premises other than 'the fossil record is flawed'.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Just a quick question-

I'd like to 'back' this article, not necessarily by saying that evolution is incorrect but by arguing that the Big Bang Theory is flawed, or at least that it is flawed unless some higher being was the first cause. I'll probably also like to include a small Intelligent Design argument as a side-dish.

Is this still relevant enough to count? I won't really be using the article's points for my argument though, I prefer to use anti-evolution premises other than 'the fossil record is flawed'.

I can tell you that your tangent is flawed and it won't likely make your argument stronger. In fact, it could lead to its demise. I would advise against it.

 

[Dre89]

Do you mean it's flawed in that to argue against Big Bang theory because my argument is likely to be wrong, or because it's not relevant enough to count?

If it's the first, am I going to be discrimited against for not being athiest? (I only got admitted into the PG today).

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Do you mean it's flawed in that to argue against Big Bang theory because my argument is likely to be wrong, or because it's not relevant enough to count?

If it's the first, am I going to be discrimited against for not being athiest? (I only got admitted into the PG today).

For the first question: Both.

For the second: No one in the PG or DH is discriminated because they are not an atheist. If in some way you feel you are, tell one of the brass and they'll take care of that real quick.

All that matters here is good, quality debating.

 

[Dre89]

For the first question: Both.

So I'm guessing I shouldn't argue it then, that's a shame, I doubt many other people we're gonna defend the article.

 

[Crimson King]

Just a quick question-

I'd like to 'back' this article, not necessarily by saying that evolution is incorrect but by arguing that the Big Bang Theory is flawed, or at least that it is flawed unless some higher being was the first cause. I'll probably also like to include a small Intelligent Design argument as a side-dish.

Is this still relevant enough to count? I won't really be using the article's points for my argument though, I prefer to use anti-evolution premises other than 'the fossil record is flawed'.

Try to bring in the article as much as you can. The point of this contest is to assess someone's ability to take a flawed argument and attack it with evidence that is stronger, OR take a flawed argument, find support, and spin into a better, stronger argument. The latter will be highly impressive, but either way shows you are a capable debater.

 

[Sucumbio]

I've never been on a debate team in my life, and I took to the DH pretty well.

yah, um, I was referring to the PGers currently "active" (or lack thereof) in here now. With the exception of myself and a few others there's mainly a lot of wanna be's in here (no offense, wanna be's).

You will have to excuse for thinking that "I don't like making threads" as a pretty big john. I made eight threads before I could even get in, and I feel my debating is better as a result of it.

eh, maybe... as a former debate team member I am used to arguing a point that's put before me, not creating them out of thin air. If I am to do so, I have to feel passionately about it, and though it may seem lame, it is in fact a ... fact that I don't feel particularly passionate about any of the current events right now, save that bit about terrorism that I did make a thread on. I am not saying I won't do it... the DH is obviously NOT the same thing as a debate squad or competition, and so the rules for getting in would also be unique, but this is just my own personal reasons for why I don't actually find myself making tons of threads.

If you want to get people to view your threads and debate, here's a suggestion: Make better topics. If you need some inspiration, feel free to look @ my threads I made and you can see which direction to take your debating in. IMHO I don't think anyone should be let in the DH if you don't make several threads (unless you're GS.)

Read above. See I don't want to just make **** up just because. The DH and PG (DH jr.) -should- be having debates on relevant material, on things that matter. If I just start throwing controversial detritus into the mix and spruce it up to look argumentative, I'm not doing myself or anyone else any real favors.

I also don't think it is necessary to let people in due to a lull in activity. When has it ever not been a PGer's personal responsibility to try to get in the DH, as opposed to freebies given to spur debate.

Fair enough.

Also, please don't mention things you don't know too much about, like my journey into the DH. You got a few things wrong there, so yeah...

Uh, do what, now? I have re-read my last post twice and see nothing in there mentioning your specific journey into the debate hall or conclusions about it. What I did say is that if the rules were changed you -may- feel slighted, and I've drawn this conclusion by reading the DH thread on this subject, in which you are primarily the only DH member against CK's idea, while simultaneously I have remembered other posts by you n which you cite how much work you had to do to get into the DH, and the quality of that work.