Still waiting for someone to debate me on the topic of their choice in an agreed upon format.
Until then, I will not be addressing the various emotional responses and comments
I'll accept your invitation Elioenai26, but we must debate on a forum where there is no netiquette eg. Atheistforums or Facebook.
but strictly only under these rules.
r1) The participants need to be willing to change their minds on a topic if there is a rational justification and evidentiary support to do so.
This is the basis of a reasonable and rational discourse.
r2) If a particular argument is demonstrated to be faulty due to a logical fallacy, the participant in question agrees to cease using this argument ever again.
This rule ensures that any logical fallacies presented are dealt with appropriately.
r3) If a particular claim is shown to be based on a source which either does not understand the topic or misrepresents the actual topic, the participant in question will agree that this source is now deemed unreliable regarding this field.
This rule is in place to ensure accountability of sources. If a source is demonstrated to be unreliable regarding a particular topic or field, it needs to be acknowledged as such.
r4) The participants agree that the position with the most supporting evidence and an absence of falsifying evidence is the most likely to be accurate.
This rule deals with the probability of one position being more accurate over another. It is closely akin but not identical to Occam's Razor.
r5) The person making the claim that something exists or something occurred has the burden of proof in providing evidence for the claim.
This rule simply establishes where the burden of proof lies.
r6) If a claim is made and it is shown to be either logically inconsistent or unsupported / falsified by evidence, the participant is not to move onto another claim without first accepting that the previous claim has been successfully refuted.
This rule is in place to ensure intellectual honesty and accountability of claims made. If a claim is successfully refuted as either logically inconsistent or unsupported / falsified by evidence, this must be acknowledged before moving on.
r7) The participants will not simply post a link farm but provide their understanding of what they are linking to.
This rule is in place to prevent the participants from "thread bombing" a list of links with no reference as to what they are or why they are posted. It is up to "you" to do the work in establishing your position.
r8) References to peer review journals by experts in the relevant field are preferred over WLC website goddoexist dot com (hypothetical)
This rule is in place to ensure that references in peer reviewed journals, written by people who are credentialed in the specific field are preferred as a reputable source over uncredentialed, non-peer reviewed works.
r9) Do not post a link to a 1 hour video without quoting the section which backs your position and provide a reference e.g. at 37:21 so and so describes how ......
This rule is in place for common courtesy. I can see no reason for you to object to this rule unless your intent is to post links to long videos with no reference to where in the video your supporting reference is or even what the relevance.
r10) 3 post maximum on your turn. Any posts beyond the 3 post maximum for your turn can be ignored. This will ensure that each proponent will definitely know when the other has finished their turn.
This rule is in place to ensure an orderly process of point, counter-point discussion.
r11) Repeated failure to adhere to the rules can result in a termination of the discussion.
This rule is in place to provide an end point to the discussion if repeated breaches of the previous 10 rules occur.
One post per turn is preferred (definitely no more than 3). Please take your time with this there is no rush. Don't feel you have to respond immediately. Remember once you post, your turn is over and you then have to wait for me to respond. I live in Australia so allow a delay for time difference.
Do you accept?
