call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:11 pm

Xouper is a stubborn cuss*. He does not vary from his stance without seriously powerful counter arguments. On this issue, he is being terribly pedantic. His stance is not in favor of alien visitors, and I suspect he is arguing for the sake of arguing. But all that is needed here to get around his obstinacy is to admit a very tiny chance (1 in a million) that lights in the sky might on rare occasions be alien visitors.

My view is that 1 in a million is close enough to a definite negative, that I might as well just say no.

*He is stubborn, but not stupid, and his arguments, though very, very annoying, generally have a kernel of sense. You just have to see that tiny little core, admit the sense there and then work around it.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:55 pm

I hav Teng'z Kindle book and red about the the Portage County case.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:07 pm

JO 753 wrote:The problem for me iz that he iz hurting hiz credibility .......
Exactly the opposite is happening.

I have clearly demonstrated that you and Richard Crist are unable to get to the first step and set out a coherent hypothesis for Washington DC. You are merely UFO fans regurgitating TV trope propaganda.

Secondly, as search engines looking for "skeptic" and "The UFO Dialectic: A Critical, Philosophical and Practical Guide to the UFO Debate" lead here, I am doing to his book, exactly the same as I did to Alan Green's book on hidden Shakespeare Codes. :D (That was my intention from "day one".)

Thirdly as I have been gathering quotes, reports, and tested science on false readings by ground radar, I am ready to enter a debate.

Would you and Richard Crist now like to have a formal moderated debate on which alternative hypothesis best accounts for the 1952 Washington DC flap? I will copy the exact format of the formal moderated debate I had with Zeuzzz. I will ask Austin Harper to moderate. The debate thread will be restricted to the moderator, you, Richard Crist and myself. A separate comment thread, as before , allow everyone to add their comments without disturbing the thread.

Do you accept the debate challenge Jo 753?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:35 pm

xouper wrote: Do you seriously want to argue against Stephen Hawking?
Why bother. This hasn't got anything to do with exotic matter required by the Alcubierre engine and you seem to have forgotten on purpose that you can't recover the the antiparticle from a black hole.

"The proposed mechanism of the Alcubierre drive implies a negative energy density and therefore requires exotic matter. So if exotic matter with the correct properties can not exist, then the drive could not be constructed "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierr ... xperiments

Now remember how I informed you that theoretical arguments about how a spaceship at light speed are only theoretical as you can't get a spaceship to light speed in the first place, which you can't do...? Well tell me now how you are going to recover an antiparticle in a black hole? :lol:

For example, the energy equivalent of −1064 kg might be required to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way—an amount orders of magnitude greater than the estimated mass of the observable universe
Gosh...there's that nasty E=MC2 again saying infinite energy would be required. .

It gets better..... The Alcubierre drive was a theoretical concept from 1994.

"However, according to Brendan McMonigal, Grant Lewis and Philip O’Byrne of the University of Sydney, in this paper, Alcubierre overlooked what happens to ordinary matter that the warp-drive spaceship would encounter on its travels.
The Alcubierre Warp Drive: On the Matter of Matter (2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708

Shall we go through the large list of reasons why this theoretical "warp drive" , that relies on non existing magic, that doesn't actually work, can't actually exist. :lol:

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you accept the debate challenge Jo 753?


Ye sure, wut the hell.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debate Accepted!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:00 am

JO 753 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you accept the debate challenge Jo 753?


Ye sure, wut the hell.
Done. Let's wait for Richard Crist to join and I will contact Austin Harper to moderate.

We will follow the rules of the previous formal "Debate : Matt VS Zeuzzz" set out here.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=25616&p=482199&hilit=debate#p465925

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Do you seriously want to argue against Stephen Hawking?
Why bother. This hasn't got anything to do with exotic matter required by the Alcubierre engine and you seem to have forgotten on purpose that you can't recover the the antiparticle from a black hole.


The point of that example was to disprove your claim that "negative energy" cannot possibly exist. That example does not imply that's the only way to get "negative energy".


Matthew Ellard wrote:Shall we go through the large list of reasons why this theoretical "warp drive" , that relies on non existing magic, that doesn't actually work, can't actually exist. :lol:


Yes, please do. Please support your claim by showing how it cannot ever exist.

You say "why bother" arguing against Hawking and yet here you are doing exactly that.

You keep making these counter-claims that you refuse to support. On a skeptic forum, no less. So far, all you have shown is bluster, but no evidence for your claims.

The resolution to this is simple as I have said more than once. Avoid making counter-claims you cannot support, and stick to the skeptical position of asking for evidence of other people's claims. Lance gets this. What's preventing you from doing the same?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:45 am

But again, Xouper, we are facing a claim of very low probability. I know you are not claiming negative energy exists, but you are opposing Matt when he says it does not. In the total absence of any empirical data to support its existence, you must appreciate that this would appear to be another million go one against situation.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:But again, Xouper, we are facing a claim of very low probability. I know you are not claiming negative energy exists, but you are opposing Matt when he says it does not. In the total absence of any empirical data to support its existence, you must appreciate that this would appear to be another million go one against situation.


Agreed.

My objection to Matthew's claim is on record. I suppose that might be sufficient.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:15 am

xouper wrote: You say "why bother" arguing against Hawking and yet here you are doing exactly that.
Bull-shit. Yet again., I clearly pointed out the negative particles that allow for Hawking's Black hole radiation are in a black hole, beyond the Schwarzschild radius (gravity radius) and cannot be recovered by Hawking's own definition. You are simply replacing one form of magic with another.

That's why I asked you how you were going to recover them and you ran away from that question.


xouper wrote: So far, all you have shown is bluster, but no evidence for your claims.
...and how can you recover massed objects from a black hole? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 am

Oh Jo 753. It is probable that Richard Crist will refuse to debate me as I'm too rude to him.

Please note that no one is allowed to be rude in a moderated debate and secondly, you and Richard Crist can prepare your key debate points and responses in private messages and then you can post for both of you.

Isn't this good news. Richard will get his debate for his Washington DC hypothesis .

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:15 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: You say "why bother" arguing against Hawking and yet here you are doing exactly that.
Bull-shit. Yet again., I clearly pointed out the negative particles that allow for Hawking's Black hole radiation are in a black hole, beyond the Schwarzschild radius (gravity radius) and cannot be recovered by Hawking's own definition. You are simply replacing one form of magic with another.

That's why I asked you how you were going to recover them and you ran away from that question.


I did not run away. I answered your question by showing the flaw in your logic.

You are claiming that the only way to make use of "negative energy" is to recover the particle from within the black Hole. How do you know there is no other way to get "negative energy"? Answer: You don't.

Your claim that "negative energy" can't possibly exist has clearly been refuted.

Now you are trying to say that there is no other way to get "negative energy" except in that particular example. How do you plan to justify your claim?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: So far, all you have shown is bluster, but no evidence for your claims.
...and how can you recover massed objects from a black hole? :lol:


That question is not evidence for your claim. Again, you have failed to show evidence for your claims.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:42 am

This iz still a fun read: Matt vs zeuzzz A few uv piks disappeared, but it still holdz together. R.I.P. zeuzzz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:24 am

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: You say "why bother" arguing against Hawking and yet here you are doing exactly that.
Bull-shit. Yet again., I clearly pointed out the negative particles that allow for Hawking's Black hole radiation are in a black hole, beyond the Schwarzschild radius (gravity radius) and cannot be recovered by Hawking's own definition. You are simply replacing one form of magic with another.

That's why I asked you how you were going to recover them and you ran away from that question.


I did not run away. I answered your question by showing the flaw in your logic.



You are claiming that the only way to make use of "negative energy" is to recover the particle from within the black Hole. How do you know there is no other way to get "negative energy"? Answer: You don't.
Nice try.

You can't recover anything from a black hole. It's the same theoretical bull-shit argument as saying "How would the propulsion work on a spaceship travelling at light speed when you can't get a spaceship to light speed in the first place. They are both theoretical maths and not real factual arguments. Secondly the anti particle in the black hole is not a negative particle or negative energy. Thirdly you are pretending to forget that I quoted that the Alcubierre Engine would require the entire mass of the universe to work under E=MC2 .......and the universe is still here clarifying that no alien got it to work.

Do I need to draw you pictures next time?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:00 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:You can't recover anything from a black hole.


I don't have to. That is the flaw in your logic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:They are both theoretical maths and not real factual arguments.


The whole thing is theoretical. So what.

The point is that it refutes your claim that it will never be possible. Theoretically it IS possible and that is the scientists saying that, not me.

Once again, your claim is busted.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Secondly the anti particle in the black hole is not a negative particle or negative energy.


Wrong.

1. No one claimed "negative particle". You made that straw man all on your own.

2. I clearly quoted where they said there is "negative energy".

Once again, your claim is busted.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Thirdly you are pretending to forget that I quoted that the Alcubierre Engine would require the entire mass of the universe to work under E=MC2


And you are pretending to forget that other scientists have since shown that it doesn't necessarily require that much energy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:37 am

JO 753 wrote:I like Matt. And in spite uv the rulez, the insults dont bug me. The problem for me iz that he iz hurting hiz credibility so now I hav to consider the possibility that the holocost denier ijits mite hav sumthing!

Wut? THAT certainly would not be logical. While everything is connected to everything else, most of the universe is best thought of as separate.................ha, ha. So....Matt being stubborn on most issues and wrong on a few, doesn't mean he is wrong on any given subject.

X would agree. So, thats 3 of us against you....except Matt wouldn't agree with any of us maintaining his original position that something is "impossible" (((((((((((((((((((accepting the limits found by Einstein))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby TEnginist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:37 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Oh Jo 753. It is probable that Richard Crist will refuse to debate me as I'm too rude to him.

Please note that no one is allowed to be rude in a moderated debate and secondly, you and Richard Crist can prepare your key debate points and responses in private messages and then you can post for both of you.

Isn't this good news. Richard will get his debate for his Washington DC hypothesis .

A debate without the invective--could be interesting. Maybe with some rule changes. Let me think about it.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: call for debaters

Postby Cadmusteeth » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:13 pm

Rule changes?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:48 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:Rule changes?

Ha, ha..............good one. I also assume he hasn't read the rules..........but somehow is spring loaded with notions of changing them already. What is the deeper meaning of this?====> as a general possibility as we cannot diagnose from a distance on a few scant posts?

Invective. Thats another subject fun to disagree about. Its rare to see invective on this forum. I know: its just words.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:20 pm

I do find Xouper's approach a bit annoying. He actually agrees with Matt, but is arguing fiddly little points. I am not quite sure why.

Xouper realises that the existence of negative energy in any amount, much less enough for FTL systems, is a million to one against, but still argues because he refuses to see that low probability as the same as not at all. Xouper also knows that the probability that Earth has alien visitors is rather small also. His positions are, on the surface, not necessarily what he really believes, and I find this aggravating.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:31 pm

Someone started a thread about what anyone feels "above average" about. Too much of hooman activity is based on this: ego..............if not hubris. The trick: make your ego feed on removing hubris. I think I'm above average at doing that. Still pisses people off........... being disagreed with.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:13 am

xouper wrote:The whole thing is theoretical. So what.
You are pretending to forget again. I have explained to you numerous times the engine does not work because it requires magic things that don't exist and would require more energy/mass than exists in the entire universe. It was a debunked theoretical mathematical exercise, from 1994 and not a real concept.

The negative energy required is not the same thing as an anti particle in a black hole and you can't recover anything from a black hole anyway. You are simply clutching at straws to get attention. :lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote:Thirdly you are pretending to forget that I quoted the recent science paper that stated the Alcubierre Engine would require the entire mass of the universe to work under E=MC2
xouper wrote:And you are pretending to forget that other scientists have since shown that it doesn't necessarily require that much energy.
I linked you to the 2012 science paper that clearly states this and the mathematics. The same paper also states that the engine cannot stop as it would destroy all matter around it. What is the date of the [i]comic book you were reading?[/i] :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do find Xouper's approach a bit annoying. He actually agrees with Matt, but is arguing fiddly little points. I am not quite sure why.
It's a personality type. Sweetpea did the same thing in the Stoned Ape Thread and Norma Blum did the same thing in any thread I posted in.

Norma actually sent me a private message two weeks ago saying "I owe you something." even though she's not posting on the forum. I ignored her. These types of people just want continual attention. :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:31 am

Matthew

I do not think Xouper is that bad, and I am someone who has argued myself blue in the face with him. He is, in fact, quite smart. But he takes a position, and cannot seem to change it. Stubborn. Just recently, he has been arguing vehemently on the basis of something that is correct, but trivial. Like the fact that you tell him there is no such thing as negative energy, while he thinks it seriously unlikely, but hey, maybe on a 1 in a million chance ...

Since technically he is correct, I think it better to simply agree.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew I do not think Xouper is that bad,
Fair enough. I simply have no interest in him in the same way I had no interest in Sweetpea or Norma. It's the loonies that interest me.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:22 am

No interest in the Portaje County case? C'mon!

Its a great case thats going to take a team effort to muster up enuf swamp gas, Venus & witness delusion to satisfy yourselvez that there are no scary alienz invading your cozy little world.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:35 am

Jo: if its only from one to a few isolated cases of actual aliens visiting but not wanting to fully integrate their visit here....then who cares? And note "who cares" is functionally the same as recognizing that if you have no effect/impact/recognition/acceptance ... THEN ... thats the functional equivalency of not existing to begin with.

Why argue/debate over the functional equivalency of ........ nothing?

..........just telling {!#%@} from shinola.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:16 am

JO 753 wrote:No interest in the Portaje County case? C'mon!

Its a great case thats going to take a team effort to muster up enuf swamp gas, Venus & witness delusion to satisfy yourselvez that there are no scary alienz invading your cozy little world.



Jo

Why don't you take up the case for the tens of thousands of people over the past millennium who have seen witches, demons, angels and monsters. They have just as strong a case as those who claim to have seen aliens since aliens became fashionable.

You know my view. Whatever people see, it becomes distorted by selective human perception and selective human memory. Anything that can possibly be mistaken for aliens will be. Naive people think that what we see is what comes in via our eyes. It is not so. What we see is a combination of what our eyes report, but modified by our expectations. A person expecting to see aliens will see aliens.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:The whole thing is theoretical. So what.
You are pretending to forget again. I have explained to you numerous times the engine does not work because it requires magic things that don't exist and would require more energy/mass than exists in the entire universe. It was a debunked theoretical mathematical exercise, from 1994 and not a real concept.


Sorry, but it has not been debunked. Your so-called "debunkers" have since been debunked themselves.

Sorry, Matthew, but you have still not "proven" your claim that FTL will never be possible.

(And by "proven" I mean supported with sufficient evidence, not mere handwaving.)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:04 pm

JO 753 wrote:No interest in the Portaje County case? C'mon!.

For those who like movies, this UFO story is incorporated into Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where a police car chases a UFO.

"Later, he (Dale Spaur) did a little consulting for Stephen Spielberg’s movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but walked off set in a huff after he found out the main character was not a cop, said James. The film opens with a police officer chasing a UFO shaped kind of like an ice cream cone on its side."

Originally Dale Spaur claimed he took photos of the ice cream cone UFO and that the USAF Blue Book officers confiscated the negatives. However 50 years later there appear to be photos. I need to check where those photos come from and read the declassified USAF case file.
Dale Spaur.jpg


In this story, the airport radar didn't pick up anything.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby TEnginist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Oh Jo 753. It is probable that Richard Crist will refuse to debate me as I'm too rude to him.

Please note that no one is allowed to be rude in a moderated debate and secondly, you and Richard Crist can prepare your key debate points and responses in private messages and then you can post for both of you.

Isn't this good news. Richard will get his debate for his Washington DC hypothesis .

I came to this forum to try to advance my idea for an innovative method of debate. My only goal was to find people who might want to participate in our proposed Truth Engine UFO debates on Youtube. I was not even expecting to argue the case for flying saucers, as I have done. But I will participate in a debate here if we use the Truth Engine method. We would use the relevant chapter in my book as a common reference for the debate, as an organizing document; that is, we would use the chapter, which I would put up on my website, to shape the debate. And then we would use the debate to re-shape the arguments in the chapter. (Then, ideally, we would use the improved chapter to shape a second debate, and the second debate to re-shape the improved chapter).

You gave a link to a set of debate rules. Formal debate such as would be governed by these rules has its place, but, it is not the kind of debate that I am interested in. I see debate as a creative process and believe that debate rules should allow as much freedom as possible. In my view, the only rule should be that there should be civility: there should be no insults, explicit or implicit (though sincere and respectful ad hominem remarks may, rarely, be legitimate), and, in a synchronous debate, the moderator should make sure that the debaters get equal time. The moderator can also facilitate the debate in other ways. He or she should refer to the chapter enough to keep the debate organized and on track.

I’d prefer debating the Portage County case, but will debate the Washington National case if the Portage County case is not agreed to.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:20 am

TE: synchronous equal time eh? You drive a hard bargain for freedom.

I haven't read either set of rules. I wonder: what do you think the main difference between the two are?.....aka: how is it the forums offered debate rules are restrictive to what you want to accomplish?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:55 am

It mite be better if its just me vs Matt.

I like the idea uv conferring with TEng in PM kuz it keeps the debate from turning into a tag team free for all.

Everybody can refer to TEngz book and wutevr sourse Matt want to uze.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:57 am

TEnginist wrote:. But I will participate in a debate here if we use the Truth Engine method.
No. I am a lawyer and also debated at university. Both these activities have evolved standardised common rules, over many years, that are understood by everyone. Instead you want to use rules invented by yourself with no precedents established for disputes and thus you can make up new rules as you go.

In addition your website clearly states that you acquire copyright of anyone who posts on it, That is totally unacceptable.


"As a submitter to a Truth Engine book you are not just a poster to a message board; rather, you are a collaborative author and should take time to develop a high quality submission. Keep in mind that your contribution may remain part of the book's text for a long time, perhaps permanently.

Note that all submissions will become the property of the Truth Engine."

http://www.truthenginebook.com/logos.html

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:00 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I haven't read either set of rules. I wonder: what do you think the main difference between the two are?.....aka: how is it the forums offered debate rules are restrictive to what you want to accomplish?

The existing rules require there to be:
a set number (4) of rounds
numbered lists of questions, which must be phrased interrogatively and "acceptably phrased"
citations for all claims
a focus on questions vs. claims
evaluations of answers by the moderator
audience participation that is limited to questions and no comments

I'd like to see good arguments on both sides, but I think that the formality of the rules can inhibit creativity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:12 am

TEnginist wrote: He (the moderator) or she should refer to the chapter enough to keep the debate organized and on track.
We are not debating the "chapter" in your book. We are debating which alternative hypothesis, put forward by either Jo 753 & Richard Crist, or myself, best fits the 1952 Washington DC facts, using the Scientific Method to establish probability.


I would imagine the debate would proceed in the following steps.
1) I would set out facts, citations and my scientific hypothesis to explain all those facts. You would then question or accept my citations, offer additional facts and citations and then set out your scientific hypothesis.

2) We would then debate which alternative hypothesis best follows Occam's razor and the various rules concerning assessment of plausibility and possibility.

3) Closing arguments.

Everyone gets to vote.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby TEnginist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:In addition your website clearly states that you acquire copyright of anyone who posts on it, That is totally unacceptable.

I don't really understand this objection. The system that I outlined would not have had anyone posting to my website.

TEnginist wrote: But I will participate in a debate here if we use the Truth Engine method.
No.

OK. Then I respectfully decline your invitation to participate. it could've been interesting.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Formal Debate agreed upon

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:34 am

TEnginist wrote: Then I respectfully decline your invitation to participate. it could've been interesting.


OK. Jo 753. Do you want to debate on Richard Crist's behalf?

It's OK to say no, with no win or loss, because this isn't what I originally offered. My offer was to formally debate Richard Crist as we have done in the past, on our Skeptic Forum, that Richard posted his claims on.


Richard Crist can still help you using our forum's private messages system. Richard went to City University of New York, to study logic and would be aware of this university's formal debating team and formal debating rules.
https://nycdu.wordpress.com/cuny/

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:49 am

I'v alredy aksepted.

There are horse stablez near my house. I will borrow a bit to chomp on wile I wait.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest