Illogical and Unfair *Debating*

[Starman]

What has quite remarkably been overlooked by everyone, and in particular atheists, who lay claim to intellectual and rational superiority, and who obviously outnumber Christians here, is the utter lack of fairness.

During every debate I have watched or read about, rules provide equal numbers of participants, who are given equal time to make their points. Clearly that is not the case on this, or any other atheist/religious forum I have encountered online.

How could so obvious an unfair practice be permitted, for so long?

To the extent that anyone has previously made this point, I have never read it, here or anywhere else. Please provide the link to the topic elsewhere in this forum, if it exists.

How can debate said to be either fair or rational when one side is argued by dozens of people, who pose far more questions, points, and challenges than the other side? This is only too often reflected in comments such as, "You never answered"...(participant #100.)

Debate rules need to be modified in the interest of fairness and rationality. Many ganging up on one, or a few, has long been considered to be bullying, and rightly so. Has any rational atheist proposed equal numbers of debaters, with each side given equal numbers of posts, of equal length here? If so, where? If not, why not?

There is no love, no civility, in repeating ad nauseum, "There is no god and you cannot prove it.... (to our satisfaction), but please try. (snark)"

The Christian equivalent to that irrational position is, "You're going to hell if you don't change (snark)." But that Christian position is not something Christians fabricated. It is fundamental to the faith, perhaps in the same way that Christianity cannot be "proven" to the satisfaction of virtually all atheists.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 20 by Zzyzx]
"What are the people like around here?"
"What were the people like where you came from?"

That's one of the all time greatest teaching quotes.

One of the most frequent things I've heard from clients in trouble was a complaint about the city they lived in. They were going to solve their problems by moving.

Tho' there is some truth to the idea of a fresh start in a new place, I always thought to myself and sometimes said, "Right. As soon as you get to the new place, you'll go to the same part of town, find the same kind of bar, and the same kind of friends you got in trouble with here." The trouble with going somewhere new is that you always bring yourself with you.

[OnceConvinced]

The best way to avoid being asked for proof is just not make claims that can't be supported. Even avoid making opinions. If for one admit that often I give opinions, but I am always willing to admit they are opinions and won't get upset if someone points out that's what they are. Perhaps you should do the same?

Also the argument to disproved something is completely irrational. It's scarcely necessary to order someone to disprove something that has not yet been proven. If we started having to disprove everything then we'd have to disprove every silly belief on the planet from ghosts, to magic, to bigfoots, to the existence of Thor.

The onus has always been on the one making the claim not the one disputing the claim, so you need to get used to that simple rule when it comes to fair and rational debate.

Many Christians have come and gone from this site. The ones with little or no faith, the ones with no longsuffering, the ones that just want to preach and not be challenged, never seem to fare well. They tend to hang around for a few weeks then run away with their tails between their legs. You can be another one of those many many Christians, or you can be like the Christians that have been regular members here for a long time. They don't give up and I give them credit for that. They try to represent their God in the best manner they can. You would do well to learn from them. Or you can show all our members (and hundreds of lurkers) just what a the average Christian does when the going gets tough - crumble, give up and run away.

I love this site because you can debate on an equal playing field and you can get really controversial if you want to, just as long as you are civil. I have gone to websites that are for Christians predominantly, run by Christian moderators. All you have to do is say something controversial and you get dire warnings for doing it. Christian dominated moderation teams seem to want to chop down anyone who challenges their sacred beliefs. What's the point if all you can do is preach to the choir and even then it can't be anything too controversial or different.

[Zzyzx]

.
People who do not fare well in debate often complain about "unfairness" or "favoritism shown others" or "moderators discriminate against me" or something similar. Most often it seems to be Christians who complain here about being disfavored or disadvantaged somehow – on a Christian owned and administered site. (Isn't that ludicrous?)

Those of us who have debated here for a while realize that there is no such pattern in this Forum and that the playing field is very level for all viewpoints.

Since those woeful tales do not explain or excuse bible-defenders so often doing poorly in debate, WHAT DOES?

[dianaiad]

As to "inviting" more Christians to debate here,
1. Most atheists treat anything said by a Christian with derision and rancor.
2. If atheists do not wish to drive Christians away by their consistent derision, rancor, and condescension, they certainly fooled me.
3. Atheists generally provide little by way of evidence of their own intellectualism and scientific acumen, while claiming more than believers.
4. I am not long for this hellhole, considering the treatment and incessant demands that I "prove" everything and document a very great deal. Meanwhile pontificating atheists simply snipe, snark, giggle,and say "evidence, proof."
Repeat.

Starman, I'm chiming in here: I've been on vacation for a week, driving up to see my daughters in Utah.

Yes, I'm a theist, a Mormon, a Christian...and a moderator on this forum. Before I was a moderator here, I was a regular participant, and I have found that this forum, is one of the most fair and civil forums on-line. Yes, I'm biased...but that bias is well earned from experience.

Yes, atheists will insist that you prove your claims. The rules of the forum state that if you make a claim, you must support it. You don't have to support a belief; that is, saying 'I believe that God loves me," doesn't require support. However, "God will send you to hell for not agreeing with me" does.

Now I've been on many other forums, and I have found that forums dedicated to the discussion of theism (especially with special areas dedicated to the discussion of belief systems that don't agree with the beliefs of the forum owner) tend to be considerably more unfair than DC&R. I should know: I've been banned from one or two of them.

The point is, Starman (and I really liked the movie; didn't like the series based on it, absolutely 'get' the reference...and how old does that make me?) that this forum has rules for a reason. I suggest that you read them, abide by them, and trust that the moderating team (which is about half and half theist/non-believer) will keep EVERYBODY in line, according to the rules. I suggest that you read those rules, and if you think someone is breaking them, report them.

If YOU adhere to them, you'll be able to hold your own just fine in here as a theist, even if many of the other posters disagree with you.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, I'm a theist, a Mormon, a Christian...and a moderator on this forum. Before I was a moderator here, I was a regular participant, and I have found that this forum, is one of the most fair and civil forums on-line.

I agree with Diana -- and I am a Non-Theist (not a believer in any of the gods) and a moderator. I also was a participant for years before agreeing to become a Moderator.

In "the old days" Diana and I had some fierce debates. Although both of us have mellowed some, we still debate our points of difference.

Like her, I have debated elsewhere on various topics and I also contend that this Forum is the best of its kind that I have encountered in ten years or so of debating on-line.

Those who do not fare well in debate can NOT legitimately blame unfairness or discrimination. Though they whine and complain, their excuses are an attempt to conceal (perhaps from themselves -- and to save face) the REAL reason for failure: 1) Lack of ability, or 2) Defending a weak or defective position.

Many disgruntled members appear to be accustomed to environments in which their statements and claims are accepted without challenge or opposition. That doesn't work here, particularly in the Christianity and Apologetics sub-forum.

[r~]

Is it unfair debating to take the right side of the answer?

ItS
love~peace
ron

[dianaiad]

Is it unfair debating to take the right side of the answer?

ItS
love~peace
ron

I would hope, young poet, that every debater considers himself on the 'right side of the answer."

Of course, there is the 'right' side, the 'wrong' side....and my side, which is not only the right side, it's the obvious, reasonable, best thought out and most logical side.

Always.

[Ancient of Years]

Is it unfair debating to take the right side of the answer?

ItS
love~peace
ron

I would hope, young poet, that every debater considers himself on the 'right side of the answer."

Of course, there is the 'right' side, the 'wrong' side....and my side, which is not only the right side, it's the obvious, reasonable, best thought out and most logical side.

Always.

Unless your opponent is a southpaw. Those sinister lefties!

[Danmark]

Is it unfair debating to take the right side of the answer?

ItS
love~peace
ron

I would hope, young poet, that every debater considers himself on the 'right side of the answer."

Of course, there is the 'right' side, the 'wrong' side....and my side, which is not only the right side, it's the obvious, reasonable, best thought out and most logical side.

Always.

Unless your opponent is a southpaw. Those sinister lefties!

Good one. I imagine few know that "sinister lefties" is redundant.

_ Dexter

[Zzyzx]

.

Unless your opponent is a southpaw. Those sinister lefties!

Good one. I imagine few know that "sinister lefties" is redundant.

Where do redheads rank in this matter?