Formal Debate Challenge Thread

[Mick]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

[Mick]

In any case, I was suspended for something I would need to argue for if I were to do that formal debate.

This has been dealt with in threads and feedback threads. Your suspension was the consequence of a fourth active warning. The foruth warning was for saying that same-sex orientation was equivalent to a congenital physical deformity, among other things. You would not have to argue that same-sex orientation is equivalent to a congenital physical deformity in order to argue the NTL objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor do we need to allow a special, FUA-invoking definition of 'nature' to discuss this matter.

I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.

[Rumraket]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

How about "There is sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in disembodied minds". I deny, you affirm?

[Mick]

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory. But it would require to argue the proposition "homosexuality is unnatural" (natural has a special meaning here). Yet, that is precisely what I was suspended for.

Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say, but how you would present such an argument without incurring the wrath of many members/mods is beyond me. Indeed, short of seeing that argument, I'm wondering whether it could be turned against you.

I could argue it in a detached way, that there are no known and sound objections to it. That wouldn't suggest it is true.

[Animavore]

In any case, I was suspended for something I would need to argue for if I were to do that formal debate.

This has been dealt with in threads and feedback threads. Your suspension was the consequence of a fourth active warning. The foruth warning was for saying that same-sex orientation was equivalent to a congenital physical deformity, among other things. You would not have to argue that same-sex orientation is equivalent to a congenital physical deformity in order to argue the NTL objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor do we need to allow a special, FUA-invoking definition of 'nature' to discuss this matter.

I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

[Animavore]

Natural law theory. But it would require to argue the proposition "homosexuality is unnatural" (natural has a special meaning here). Yet, that is precisely what I was suspended for.

Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say, but how you would present such an argument without incurring the wrath of many members/mods is beyond me. Indeed, short of seeing that argument, I'm wondering whether it could be turned against you.

I could argue it in a detached way, that there are no known and sound objections to it. That wouldn't suggest it is true.

Lion IRC already debated this and lost miserably. How and ever, if he was allowed do it I don't see why you shouldn't be.

[Mick]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

How about "There is sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in disembodied minds". I deny, you affirm?

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied. The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

[Rumraket]

I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory. But it would require to argue the proposition "homosexuality is unnatural" (natural has a special meaning here). Yet, that is precisely what I was suspended for.

Sounds like a ridiculous topic since you could basically just invent some crazy version of "natural" tailored to make homsexuality not fit the definition. When you start with already disagreeing on whether the definition of "natural" used is meaningful, you won't even get to the meat about homosexuality in the first place, you'd be debating your various ethical and philosophical starting positions.

[Mick]

Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say, but how you would present such an argument without incurring the wrath of many members/mods is beyond me. Indeed, short of seeing that argument, I'm wondering whether it could be turned against you.

I could argue it in a detached way, that there are no known and sound objections to it. That wouldn't suggest it is true.

Lion IRC already debated this and lost miserably. How and ever, if he was allowed do it I don't see why you shouldn't be.

There is a big difference in competency between he and I.

[Mick]

In any case, I was suspended for something I would need to argue for if I were to do that formal debate.

This has been dealt with in threads and feedback threads. Your suspension was the consequence of a fourth active warning. The foruth warning was for saying that same-sex orientation was equivalent to a congenital physical deformity, among other things. You would not have to argue that same-sex orientation is equivalent to a congenital physical deformity in order to argue the NTL objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor do we need to allow a special, FUA-invoking definition of 'nature' to discuss this matter.

I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.

[Rumraket]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

How about "There is sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in disembodied minds". I deny, you affirm?

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied.

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

[Mick]

I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory. But it would require to argue the proposition "homosexuality is unnatural" (natural has a special meaning here). Yet, that is precisely what I was suspended for.

Sounds like a ridiculous topic since you could basically just invent some crazy version of "natural" tailored to make homsexuality not fit the definition. When you start with already disagreeing on whether the definition of "natural" used is meaningful, you won't even get to the meat about homosexuality in the first place, you'd be debating your various ethical and philosophical starting positions.

The starting positions are important. You'll find that many positions depend on contentious metaphysical ideas that undergird ethical theories.

[Mick]

I'd be interested in debating this:

"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.

How about "There is sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in disembodied minds". I deny, you affirm?

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied.

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

[Mick]

I'm more interested in abortion though.

[Animavore]

This has been dealt with in threads and feedback threads. Your suspension was the consequence of a fourth active warning. The foruth warning was for saying that same-sex orientation was equivalent to a congenital physical deformity, among other things. You would not have to argue that same-sex orientation is equivalent to a congenital physical deformity in order to argue the NTL objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor do we need to allow a special, FUA-invoking definition of 'nature' to discuss this matter.

I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.

Even if you could show homosexuality was a departure from 'proper form' you still have a long way to go to show that we should deny people rights based on this. In fact, if what you say is true, then denying homosexuals rights is as egregious as denying Down Syndrome people rights. You make your case against gay marriage, for instance, worse, not better by following this line of argument. So I'm not sure why you would even want to employ it.

[Animavore]

I'm more interested in abortion though.

What type of abortion? In relation to saving a mother's life? In relation to rape victims? In relation to fatal foetal anomalies? In relation to people who simply don't want kids? (remembering that your church says a blanket 'No' to all of them)

[Rumraket]

How about "There is sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in disembodied minds". I deny, you affirm?

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied.

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Animavore]

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied.

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not sure how you would even argue the opposite, that there are no disembodied minds. You're not omniscient.

I'm sure Mick knows this, of course.

[Mick]

I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.

You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.

Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.

Even if you could show homosexuality was a departure from 'proper form' you still have a long way to go to show that we should deny people rights based on this. In fact, if what you say is true, then denying homosexuals rights is as egregious as denying Down Syndrome people rights. You make your case against gay marriage, for instance, worse, not better by following this line of argument. So I'm not sure why you would even want to employ it.

You're confused. NL theorists will argue that homosexuality and Downs are both disordered conditions, true. However, nothing about being homosexual or a person with Downs is immoral in and of itself. Rather, it is the behaviour that NT theorists condemn as immoral. To be a homosexual is not a choice, but to engage in homosexual sex is. That behaviour is what will be said to be contrary to natural law, for NT theorists. The rights denied to homosexual persons, by NT theorists, is entirely based upon behaviour. In contrast, behaving like a person with Downs, if you have Downs, is not immoral, as it is not a matter of choice, for NT theorists. However, if there was a cure for Downs, and a person with Downs did not want the cure, then, depending on their cognitive level, there might be a moral issue there, for NT theorists. Likewise, since I am deafened, many NT theorists would see a problem if I were to choose to be deafened rather than wear my hearing aids.

[Mick]

Thomists believe that human beings are essentially bodied.

What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?

The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.

I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.

It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.

I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.

Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is dependent on your perspective. On my view, materialism or physicialism is an extraordinary claim.