Open call for ideas on future debates

Originally posted by Druid42
I'd like to formally present a new topic, "There is no extra-terrestrial intelligent life in the universe, save the planet Earth." I'll offer an open challenge. I'll take the pro position.

I'll argue the point that there is no other intelligent lifeforms "out there", and that we are alone in the cosmos, and are a unique species with a limited lifespan. Yes, I am the skeptic at heart.

Anyone?

I accept the challenge, so long as there is no limit spacially in the cosmos. ie: you cannot say none in the universe, since there is more space out there than simply the known universe. Your position must be, "there is no extra-terrestrial intelligent life, and Earth is the only inhabited planet." On that, i will take con.

I will also wait in the cue for your other obligations to be complete.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Will you accept this wording?

"There is no extra-terrestrial intelligent life in the known universe, and the Earth is the only inhabited Planet."

We need to agree on the premise, so please correct the details if necessary!

reply to post by Druid42


That was the very change I was trying to avoid when asking for universe to be taken out of the sentence...

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Ah, ok, I see.

Premise for the debate then is thus:

There is no extra-terrestrial intelligent life, and Earth is the only inhabited planet.

That does leave the debate more "open", and I can understand why you would want that restriction removed.

I can agree to that. Agreed?

reply to post by Druid42


Agreed

I think I have all of the currently arranged matches posted now. If I have forgotten anybody who is ready to go with a topic and opponent just u2u me and I'll set you up.

reply to post by Druid42


Alright, lets do it.

reply to post by enjoies05


Since you are pro, and go first, send a u2u to The Vagabond and get the thread started. I'll respond to your Opening with my own.

Good Luck!

Hang on guys, 2 debates for a fighter at once is an experiment- jumping straight to 3 is a little much. If everyone starts doing it there will be no chance of getting debates judged.

I have been kicking around some less serious, less evidence-dependent topics, and today one of our fighters gave me one that I think will be of interest to at least a few people, so here is that, plus a few of my own.

The idea was Star Wars vs Star Trek- which of course is broad enough to allow a million different areas of focus:
A Wookie would probably kill a Klingon in unarmed combat.
The Galactic Empire could conquer the Federation.
The USS Enterprise could defeat an Imperial Star Destroyer.
Jean Luc Picard is wiser than Obi Wan Kenobi.
Mark Hammil is more washed up than William Shatner.
Star Wars fans are generally cooler than Star Trek fans.
Star Trek fans are generally smarter than Star Wars fans.
The Star Wars storyline is more meaningful than that of Star Trek.

etc etc etc... I could probably churn out another 30 propositions without stopping to think- the possibilities are limitless if we have enough sci-fi people here. Not that I'd want to see these topics take over the forum.


As for my own non-star-wars related ideas:
1. Legalizing dueling would solve as many problems as it created.
2. Books are superior to movies.
3. Society really would embrace a costumed vigilante as a hero.
4. All things Disney should be banned.
5. Humans will some day have to pay reparations for their treatment of dogs.
6. All human life is probably just an elaborate situation-comedy set up by other-worldly beings of some kind.

I'm up for a debate, choose a topic

reply to post by The Vagabond


Trekkies suck. There is currently no time frame on my current debate, which is actually quite a nice way to debate, if i may say so.

Ahem, any way, yeah. Trekkies suck!

After closing statements in my current debate I will take the pro Starwars side on any topic listed by, or created by The Vagabond out of the top of his head.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
2. Books are superior to movies.

I would take you on with this one (if I could take the Pro position, that is I think I'd struggle to find ANY reason that movies were superior, lol)

I'll also toss my hat into the ring as someone willing to defend the "Pro" position for anyone who wants to argue against religion, organized or otherwise.

reply to post by adjensen

I'll also toss my hat into the ring as someone willing to defend the "Pro" position for anyone who wants to argue against religion, organized or otherwise.

Can you further describe your position?

Define the debating premise. I may be interested.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'll also toss my hat into the ring as someone willing to defend the "Pro" position for anyone who wants to argue against religion, organized or otherwise.

Can you further describe your position?

Well, I'd likely need to be supporting Christianity in some flavour, unless the debate was excessively generic, but I'm well versed in the Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian and Reformed theologies, and have made a long study of church history, specializing in the development of Orthodoxy and early heresies. I am neither a Fundamentalist nor a Creationist (who always seem to drive some of the most passionate arguments,) though in a pinch, could probably defend either.

So, you can pick some aspect of Christian theology, a specific belief in general, or something else, and I'll let you know if I'd give you much of a go, but I think in most cases, I can.

reply to post by adjensen


How about the Second Coming, or Rapture, as defined by modern Christian denominations? Let's try to be a bit more specific, however, so I'll let you refine it a bit more.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen

 

How about the Second Coming, or Rapture, as defined by modern Christian denominations? Let's try to be a bit more specific, however, so I'll let you refine it a bit more.

Well, I can certainly do Second Coming, though Rapture would be a bit of a stretch -- I've studied Scofield, but have never really put a lot of credence in the notion. I'm not sure how the Second Coming could be debated, though, from a simple pro/con, as it would essentially come down to a debate as to whether Christ came the first time, or not, so one might as well debate that.

How about the Catholic notion of Purgatory? That's controversial, and can certainly be argued from either a Protestant or non-Christian perspective (I'd take the Catholic view, if you don't mind.)

The question might be:

The Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory is a reasonable refutation of claims that God is unjust in eternal reward or punishment.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen

 

How about the Second Coming, or Rapture, as defined by modern Christian denominations? Let's try to be a bit more specific, however, so I'll let you refine it a bit more.

Actually, I thought of a way to approach this, so if you'd like to give it a go, I'm game. However, as I said in the other reply, we'd have to presuppose that Christian claims as regards Christ's divinity and existence are correct, to avoid the debate being on that, rather than on the Second Coming.

My position would be: The Second Coming of Christ is a real event that may soon be upon us.

reply to post by adjensen


Hmm. That is an interesting premise. Are you sure you want the pro position?

If so, I'll accept.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hmm. That is an interesting premise. Are you sure you want the pro position?

If so, I'll accept.

Oops, sorry, I didn't see your reply until just now :-)

Sure, I think I can make a case for it. If you want to u2u me to set things up (I have no idea how this is supposed to work) that would be great. I'll be out of town Tuesday and Wednesday next week, so hopefully we can go after then.