Vorkosigan

Within this thread however the statement that Madmax makes seems to imply that he graciously offered his opponent the "opportunity" to discuss and he declined making an impression that he was not receptive to any suggestions. This indicating someone with an unreasonableness.

Well, it was gracious of Madmax to give Andrew the opportunity to flesh out some ideas, and I am sure that Andrew's response was made in the same spirit. I think you just read into Max's response.

Time for an apology, methinks.

Michael

agapeo

[Well, it was gracious of Madmax to give Andrew the opportunity to flesh out some ideas, and I am sure that Andrew's response was made in the same spirit. I think you just read into Max's response.]

Quite possible. I would have to hear from Andrew_theist or those involved in the actual setup of the debate to determine that.

[Time for an apology, methinks.]

Methinks you may be correct if I did indeed read into what Madmax said or I thought he implied. He indicated in his response to my question that it was not his intention and therefore my apologies are hereby tendered. Methinks that my bringing up the implication that I saw also allowed for the clarification from you as well as from Madmax.

Michael[/QB][/QUOTE]

faded_Glory

The three judgements have now been <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000011" target="_blank">posted </a>, and there is a clear winner!

fG

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

Congradulations Max. I wish I could say I agreed with the outcome but I don't. I can't see how a person who was on the defensive the entire time, who quoted no authorities, who employed personal invective and insinuation and continuely asserted his position over and over and needed to do nothing more than hand waving and objection raising to not only win the debate but according to the judges win it handily. As for Bede I have no explanation as to how he feels I only did half as well as my opponent. Hopefully he will share some thoughts.

In the eyes of some I may have lost but at least I played the game. At least two non-theists on my own board thought I won. And one person on this board believes I won clearly. Thanks all.

madmax2976

Thank you Andrew. Of course I disagree completely with your assessment of the debate. My opening post proves I wasn't on the defensive "all the time". As a matter of fact I believe you were more on the defensive as I demonstrated your arguments essentially went nowhere. While you did provide citations, I disagree that your quotation of "authorities" amounted to much in this instance. They were essentially just the opinions of a few naturalists/scientists, and one theist as I recall. You didn't offer most of them as support for any actual evidence or data, but just to show their opinion. If they had supported data or other evidence, they would have counted more highly for you. As it was, I'll conceed some points for looks, but not much for substance on this issue.

As for insinuation, you had your own share of this in your continued second quessing of naturalists motives.

I think it fair to say however that we both made mistakes. I certainly recognized some of my own and I want to thank Silent Dave particularly for his judgement and analysis. I think some of his points were right on in regards to the weaknesses of my participation. As this was my first formal debate I only hope that I can improve the next time around. The one thing I'll have to get used to is the space limitation. THAT was a bear!

As a matter of propriety I want to apologize for my posting on this thread (and possibly the other one) as I wasn't aware that there was an agreement not to post until after the judgements were handed out. (According to Faded Glory's post, there apparently was.)

I assumed it was just until the conclusions had been offered.

Thanks again to all the judges. I do believe I won the debate, but I don't believe I won by as much as the margin would indicate. I'm far too critical of myself to think that.

Bede

Andrew,

You lost because:

- you said nothing of relevance in the opening post;

- you conceeded all definitional ground to Max;

- you did not sufficiently support the evidence you did give or give yourself a chance to defend against Max's refutations;

- you sometimes sounded like you thought there was a naturalist conspiracy in science.

- Max didn't fall into any of the usual traps on cosmology.

I have to score it as I see it. Fact is, I think the evidence does point to theism and in my heart would always like to see a theist beat an atheist in debate. In this case, however, it was not to be.

I very much hope you will take part in future debates and that you will do better next time. The way to win this kind of debate is to define the terms to suit yourself and then make the cosmological, fine tuning, freewill, psychological, experiential and morality arguments carefully formulated to fend off the usual objections. Ignore all the stuff about scientists not thinking outside the box as it is only evidence for scientists not thinking outside the box. Neither do most accountants and, as Anderson shows, this is widely felt to be a good thing. And yes, your average working scientist is at about the same intellectual level as your average working accountant (although accountancy exams are harder).

Anyway, I hope you haven't found this experience too discouraging and will keep on debating.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library</a> -faith and reason

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

faded_Glory

Andrew,

Please don't be too discouraged. I enjoyed the debate regardless of the outcome, and I have to say that it may have been largely thanks to your ideas on how to structure the event that it has stayed so nicely on track. This debate has been the best so far in FD&D in terms of focus, timing, commitment and overall value, and you have contributed more than your fair share to make this the case.

We all learn from these things, and I hope that you will consider participating in other debates in the future. And, if this is a consolation, max's prize money is exactly the same as yours

fG

Silent Dave

Andrew, you're correct that Max was on the defensive most of the time -- and that is because you forced him into that position by refusing to accept a meaningful onus of responsibility yourself. That, more than any other reason, is why you lost.

I'll discuss your other points when I have more time. Let me repeat for the moment, however, that you are certainly capable in philosophical discussions, and I would enjoy seeing you debate again.


Dave

Vorkosigan

This debate has been the best so far in FD&D in terms of focus, timing, commitment and overall value, and you have contributed more than your fair share to make this the case.

I can only echo this. Andrew's willingness to engage is wonderful, and has advanced the debate forum tremendously.

Many thanks!

Michael

Vorkosigan

The way to win this kind of debate is to define the terms to suit yourself and then make the cosmological, fine tuning, freewill, psychological, experiential and morality arguments carefully formulated to fend off the usual objections.

Alas, since these arguments are at heart weak, unsupported by evidence, contradicted by evidence, arbitrary, subjective and often in violation of natural law, this is impossible.

The best way to win a debate like this is to accept your opponent's definitions and then drive a truck through them, showing where they are contradictory, subjective, arbitrary unsupported by logic or evidence, and lacking in knowledge of how the world actually works, whilst simultaneously putting forth evidence for the intelligent alternative. Of course, it is rather difficult to show that the materialist view is any of those things.

Michael