Durro wrote:Lion and Croc - I would prefer that you not try to let the debate spill over into the comments thread. It may be interpreted by some as a means to circumvent the word limit, and of course, would invite distractions and tangents from the main debate. You guys have a dedicated, uninterrupted forum to air your opinions, so it would be best to keep them there.

But you're welcome to discuss other, related issues here.

Duly noted. I wasn't planning on doing any debatey (it's a word) stuff here. Just letting people know that they shouldn't expect a quickfire response.

72 hours for a considered sounds fine to me.

John

z8000783 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:I will be paying close attention to what gets posted in here for the duration of the debate.

The I suggest to everybody that we restrict ourselves to indehiscent projectiles.

Incidentally, historically, the practice has been that participants in a formal debate are excluded from posting in the gallery. Has this been suspended for this débâcle?

I think that would be a good idea.

If it isn't done technically then perhaps the debaters could refrain from comment voluntarily. There will be ample opportunity for further discussion when the formal debate is finished.

John

Thumb up

I think that's an interesting starter from Lion. A fair bit has been promised here, so I'm keen to see how much is delivered in replies. The natural law route is popular, but it's also drawn a lot of criticism and I think some of that sticks. Importantly here, I have some pretty serious doubts that it can get to the desired conclusions about homosexuality, even accepting what NL theorists say about sex and marriage. And in the background to that, I've read a nice book-length argument that neither natural law nor divine command theory is sufficient for a theistic explanation of morality.

Of course, Croc probably doesn't accept a natural law view anyway (unless he's about to surprise me ), so it'll be interesting to see where he comes from with his post.

Thank you ... you who are reading, for your tacit acknowledgement that there are TWO sides to this debate.

...that remains to be seen.

Lion IRC wrote:False.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/forma ... t6927.html

Historically. LOL
This is the second formal debate this forum has held.

For what its worth, I wont be discussing anything substantive.

You know very well that the history of this forum extends way beyond the history of this forum.

On the opening statement, interesting is not the word I'd use. This looks like it will be way more painful than I had previously envisaged.

This is going to be a debacle. And not for Croc.

I will wait to see if my opponent concedes to the logic that, as a species, We – capital “W” - are “born that way”. We procreate “that way”. We structure our social institutions “that way”.

...and We THINK “that way”.

Umm ... this means what, exactly? What is "that way" and why is it put in singular? /rhetorical question

I love this bit:
"
Or the Special Pleading ”... It must be open to all Australians, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

"and offering examples of judicial activism"

Also the return of the 'activist judge' canard will be quite interesting. I'm sure Lion will be able to present evidence that their rulings were based on activism and not correct interpretation of the law.

I'm also anxious to see how Lion is going to defend his baseless assertions about 'dysfunctional families' and the like and how consistent he's going to be on that point. (Single dads for example)

katja z wrote:

I will wait to see if my opponent concedes to the logic that, as a species, We – capital “W” - are “born that way”. We procreate “that way”. We structure our social institutions “that way”.

...and We THINK “that way”.

Umm ... this means what, exactly? What is "that way" and why is it put in singular? /rhetorical question

You don't understand "logic"?

Yeah, the "that way" bit looked a little strange to me.

CookieJon wrote:
You don't understand "logic"?

I think I've come across the term before ... Something to do with Logi the fire giant?

Spinozasgalt wrote:Yeah, the "that way" bit looked a little strange to me.

Just that bit?

Stop saying things. Silly cat!

Lion IRC wrote:For what its worth, I wont be discussing anything substantive.

Did you really mean to say that?

FWIW, I think the rule that participants in the debate be forbidden from reading or participating in the Peanut Gallery should be observed, even though I admit it may be unenforceable. It just seems unfair to do otherwise.

I am somewhat unimpressed with Lion's first post of the debate. Many words, nothing much of substance. Then again, I can't really say I'm surprised...

Shrunk wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:For what its worth, I wont be discussing anything substantive.

Did you really mean to say that?

To be fair, he was referring to his posting in the Peanut Gallery.

So, misrepresentation then?

John

Lizard_King wrote:I am somewhat unimpressed with Lion's first post of the debate. Many words, nothing much of substance. Then again, I can't really say I'm surprised...

Seemed alright to me, it was an opening post laying out the approach he was going to take which also depends on what CG is going to say.

What would you expect otherwise?

John