Reverse debate #1 - Page 3

vauge · 12-28-06, 06:26 PM

Private debate closed - now open for discussion.

tecoyah · 12-28-06, 06:26 PM

This is no longer a private debate....and is open to all.

Thelost1 · 12-29-06, 04:34 PM

Well. I think Vauge won. Since Tecoyah cannot prove that there is a god and Vauge cannot prove the negative. What do you guys think?

1069 · 12-29-06, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thelost1

Well. I think Vauge won. Since Tecoyah cannot prove that there is a god and Vauge cannot prove the negative. What do you guys think?

I agree. It was very interesting, all around.

tecoyah · 12-29-06, 05:16 PM

Actually....I tend to think I lost this one as well....but not for lack of trying.

Just a damn hard position to make.....but I did try.

Kudos to Vauge....well played sir.

talloulou · 12-29-06, 05:50 PM

Clearly tecoyah was in the harder position and I think he did okay however there were more cards he could have played but perhaps his disbelief prevented those cards from occurring to him.

Likewise I think vauge could of come up with more than the old "I can't see it, I can't smell it...." Tons of crap exists that I'm not even remotely aware of. Tons of stuff goes on right under my nose that I don't see, taste, or smell so that argument appeared very weak to me.

Not to be overly harsh but I expected more out of the two of ya.

1069 · 12-29-06, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Clearly tecoyah was in the harder position and I think he did okay however there were more cards he could have played but perhaps his disbelief prevented those cards from occurring to him.

Likewise I think vauge could of come up with more than the old "I can't see it, I can't smell it...." Tons of crap exists that I'm not even remotely aware of. Tons of stuff goes on right under my nose that I don't see, taste, or smell.

Not to be overly harsh but I expected more out of the two of ya.

Well, this was only the first.
Both did well; the existence of God, relying as it does upon faith or anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence, is a fiendishly difficult position for an atheist to defend (or even comprehend).

talloulou · 12-29-06, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Well, this was only the first.
Both did well; the existence of God, relying as it does upon faith or anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence, is a fiendishly difficult position for an atheist to defend (or even comprehend).

Yeah but these two are debate pros so to speak. Both their arguments lacked fire and passion. Is lacking fire and passion a goal in debate?

1069 · 12-29-06, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Yeah but these two are debate pros so to speak. Both their arguments lacked fire and passion. Is lacking fire and passion a goal in debate?

I don't consider "fire" and "passion" necessary components of an effective debate; all too often, these qualities edge over into shrillness and hysteria, and who needs that?
Perhaps, because it was the first debate, they rushed through it.
I told Jerry we should take all the time we want on debate #2; several days, if necessary.

vauge · 12-29-06, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Yeah but these two are debate pros so to speak. Both their arguments lacked fire and passion. Is lacking fire and passion a goal in debate?

I agree there could and probably should have been much more.

It was very fun for the both of us, as there was much more that you all didn't see resulting in shorter posts.

We were both hammering it out in the chatroom as well.