Total questions: 21
There is no challenge to accept. I will wait for you to send it through again.
Took too long, good for you since I had to go back and copy paste the definitions anyway so I might as well have added the sources...
YOU: "I'm not going back and adding sources. If you are seriously going to harp on this you can list the sources in your round or I can leave them out entirely." I will footnote them in the Comments. Are you in agreement?
Fine
YOU: "We're not barrowing definitions, we're laying out the rules of the debate. What is wrong with you? Again, it's just a description." It is a word-for-word definition from another source other than you or I. The source needs to be identified.
The purpose of a source is to show that you are not just making something up. That matters within a debate so that your opponent cannot claim you are just making stuff up. This is not the debate, it's the rules we are both agreeing to prior to the start of the debate. The source is irrelevant. Not one person on earth is going to read the rules and wonder what the source was, and if they do they have no business judging it because they clearly don't know how debates work.
I'm not going back and adding sources. If you are seriously going to harp on this you can list the sources in your round or I can leave them out entirely.
Make up your mind on whether you want to do this debate.
No. The definition it contrasts with is the denial of (or a position against) the existence of God or gods.
It's a debate resolution genius. It's supposed to contrast with the position you accept, that's why you're the Con. Con means against, as in your are against the resolution (definition) provided. My god dude, do you know what a resolution is? Do you know what a debate is?
Resolution: Statement X
Pro agrees with statement X
Con disagrees with statement X
Debate ensues
Judges then determine whether they accept statement X as argued by Pro, or do not accept statement X in which case Con gets the win
That's called a debate.
Nope. Borrowing definitions from sources without identifying them is plagerism.
We're not barrowing definitions, we're laying out the rules of the debate. What is wrong with you? Again, it's just a description. It's not an argument. We're not trying to pass this off as our own work. And no one is even going to read this unless there is a dispute between us as to what one of these words mean. That's the only reason for putting them in there, and even then it's a waste of time. I accept all of your definitions so the only chance any of this will matter is if you try to claim one of your own definitions is wrong.
Accept or don't. At this point I don't care because it seems like your really don't want to do the debate and are just looking for a way to wiggle out of it. This is a stupid thing to get hung up over.
Can you also provide the sources of the definitions? [1], [2] and insert the web address by highlighting the number and linking it.
No. The links have no purpose. It’s the debate description, not an argument. By putting the definitions in the description we’re both agreeing to them so the source is irrelevant.
Can we just get on with this?
Nope. Do not agree in any way. You are creating the definition while prohibiting me from one on the grounds that this is what we are trying to determine. Please reword to exclude the term "definition."
What?
Of course you don’t agree, that’s why you’re the Con. That means you’re against the resolution. I am not creating the definition, we’re debating the definition. That’s how we debate it.
Atheism --> a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Why on earth… in a debate over the definition of atheism would we define atheism is the introduction? The whole point is that we disagree on the definition. Also, this definition already defines it as a lack of belief which is the debate title so just by putting in there is automatically win.
I think the definitions you provided are a bit overkill, but I’m not going to quiver over them so I’ll just include them. Just atheism has to be left out since that’s literally what we’re supposed to be establishing.
So, are you going to make the changes? Also, do you want to include any definitions? I do.
I will make the changes and resend as soon as you send over your suggested edits. Want to get us on the same page before trying again. Sending you another question, please reply there with your definitions or any other rules you want to add/change. I believe so far we’ve agreed on 10k character limit, 3 rounds and I’ll remove the no dictionary/historical rule.
What is a private challenge? Is that where you specify the opponent?
I believe so. I put your name in the contender box so that’s probably why it showed up like that.
I will accept 10,000 characters, but I will not guarantee using much less in every round. I have a lot to say.
You have too much to say, that’s the problem. IMHO you need to learn how to narrow down your points, it’s overkill and it puts the readers to sleep. If we can’t fit all of our points into an 8,000 character round then the topic is too broad. But like I said, I’ll compromise on 10k.
It can mean both a lack of belief and denial of God, even in our age. The problem is that once you lack a belief in God, you appeal to the natural realm or solipsism.
Again, this has nothing to do with the set up of the debate. If you want to make this argument in the debate I’ll be happy to engage.
I disagree. The meaning of the word is significant in understanding what it means. So is history. Do people have to believe other things once they deny or lack a belief in God?
What? This is classic question begging. You’re trying to begin with your definition so that you can argue your definition is correct. The point of this debate is to talk about what the word atheism *should* be thought to mean. That is a case based on reasonable application, not whatever our ancestors said it means.
If you really care about this so bad I’ll remove it and you can make this argument in the debate, albeit I find this a waste of time. Words change all the time, people 100 years ago used all kinds of words differently than today. Words mean whatever we say they mean, so the question is what should they mean.
As far as whether people have to believe other things, we’ve already argued about this in the comments and it’s one of the reasons we decided to take this to a debate. It should be litigated there.
YOU: "Dictionary definitions and historical usages are not relevant to this debate since it is the dictionary and/or historical usage itself that is being questioned."
…….
I believe dictionary definitions and historical usage are most relevant. Only in the last half-century have people started insisting on the "only a lack of belief" definition.
Why does any of this matter? Who cares what terms people 100 years ago were using or how they were using them?
I also want 12,000 characters. I also believe the burden of proof is required on whoever makes a claim, so you don't have to take on the full burden.
12,000 characters is way too long, I’m not about to put all this time and effort into a debate for no one to read it because they couldn’t make time. It took me 3 days to get through your last debate, and I almost gave up several times because I have other things I could be doing. I’d rather lose than end up with a scoreless tie. I’ll agree to 10,000 if you agree not to use the entire space unless you need it to make your point.
Whoever makes any claim always has the burden of proof on that claim. That’s an issue within the debate. The BoP is on me in the sense that I am the only one responsible for establishing a positive case. I can expand on that in the description if you like
I'm not liking: "Dictionary definitions and historical usages are not relevant to this debate since it is the dictionary and/or historical usage itself that is being questioned."
What about it do you not like? What is the purpose of debating a definition of all you’re going to do is argue that someone else said the definition should be X?
So, if you want to get the debate going we need to discuss it between us. I am sending you a friendship request to make it easier.
Accepted the request. I think the easiest way to do this is for me to send you the debate challenge so I don’t have to rewrite everything, I can just put the rules there and we can discuss and make edits before you accept.
Basics are that I will take full BoP to establish the definition of atheism as “lack of belied in a God”
You remind me of Ben Affleck in The Accountant.
Never seen it. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Required reading in school, have there been any books that stand out in your memory, if so, why?
Sorry, don’t have any recommendations. I’ve actually never been a reader
Are you HistoryBuff’s alt?
I just saw this question, I have no idea when it was sent but... No. I have no alternate account. I came over from DDO, same username, same profile pic