I have just spoken with creationistalltheway. (ATTN: WONG)

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-04 05:38pm

I have just had an AIM conversaiton that was completely rational with creationistalltheway from CreationWeb. She seems interested in the idea of a three-on-three debate. I would like to propose this debate to SBollinger and Darth Wong as outlined in a previous thread, and was mostly voted yes for me to email SBollinger.

I would love to participate in the debate, but I think it is up to the board as a whole to decide who will go.

Thank you,
Verilon

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-04 05:54pm

Under what context? Just three-on-three, going at the overly general topic, or three individual debates focused on three specific topics?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-04 05:59pm

Durandal wrote:Under what context? Just three-on-three, going at the overly general topic, or three individual debates focused on three specific topics?

I didn't say. But I would liek three on three on both counts. The three makes it easier, bacause there will be those that are lacking in knowledge that others may have. Also, the three-on three (maybe a two/two match would be better...will explain why in a bit) for separate points, because they sometimes need the knowledge broguht to them, and they can do the same for us. But I think that the two/two match may be better, becasue they are going to try to have two points be theirs, with ours only being one (lopsided). On the other hand, we can defend this by saying its at their forum, so we get the choice of two of the topics.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 06:03pm

Explicit, posted rules would be necessary. And breaking them should be grounds for concession.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-04 06:05pm

neoolong wrote:Explicit, posted rules would be necessary. And breaking them should be grounds for concession.

Read my post regarding the email I may send to Bollinger.

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-04 06:15pm

I didn't say. But I would liek three on three on both counts. The three makes it easier, bacause there will be those that are lacking in knowledge that others may have. Also, the three-on three (maybe a two/two match would be better...will explain why in a bit) for separate points, because they sometimes need the knowledge broguht to them, and they can do the same for us. But I think that the two/two match may be better, becasue they are going to try to have two points be theirs, with ours only being one (lopsided). On the other hand, we can defend this by saying its at their forum, so we get the choice of two of the topics.

Several board members, including myself, have volunteered to debate on specific issues surrounding the overall debate, and we volunteered for them based on knowledge of the field in question. Trust me, this would be the best way to do it. You don't spraw machine gun bullets around and hope for a hit. You precisely pick your targets.

Part of the reason creationists are so successful is because they can misdirect a debate. If you firmly establish that, from the beginning, there are very specific boundaries, you take their chief asset away.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 06:28pm

verilon wrote:
neoolong wrote:Explicit, posted rules would be necessary. And breaking them should be grounds for concession.
Read my post regarding the email I may send to Bollinger.

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

Yes, but considering how often they break their own rules, an explicit punishment for doing so must be included instead of just implied.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-05 01:34am

Yeah, especially SBollinger. He's definitely the kind of kid that, when given even a neglegible amount of power (ie thread locking. For chrissake, threads don't need to be locked when the Admin's done adding what he wants to the thread!!), will abuse it to outrageous lengths. If you're going to try and debate his Wall of Ignorance, don't give him anything resembling a privelidge. Trust me, I can smell power-hunger over the internet.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-05 11:06am

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Yeah, especially SBollinger. He's definitely the kind of kid that, when given even a neglegible amount of power (ie thread locking. For chrissake, threads don't need to be locked when the Admin's done adding what he wants to the thread!!), will abuse it to outrageous lengths. If you're going to try and debate his Wall of Ignorance, don't give him anything resembling a privelidge. Trust me, I can smell power-hunger over the internet.

Which is why Wong should be there as well.