I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

Standard rules apply or make a suggestion before we begin so the rules can be changed accordingly. I will make the final call, but I will be a fair and reasonable to any departure from the standard rules.

Before I accept a challege, I will be looking at your history of posts. If you have established yourself as a serious debator your chances will be increase I take you on.

The premise is ridiculous, it is neither science nor pseudoscience, it is a label we place on a certain kind of behavior.

I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

Standard rules apply or make a suggestion before we begin so the rules can be changed accordingly. I will make the final call, but I will be a fair and reasonable to any departure from the standard rules.

Before I accept a challege, I will be looking at your history of posts. If you have established yourself as a serious debator your chances will be increase I take you on.

I think I see where you're coming from ancient, although I think your wording is off; is your 'devil's advocate' argument that the term 'pedophilia' is not a 'psychological disorder' as wikipedia puts it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile)?

I think he's saying that it doesn't really exist, because we use an artificial threshold age to define it. This is of course nonsense.

I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Are you saying pedophilia isn't real? Or that it is "normal"? Or what?

Nobody ever said it was a science.

I might be willing to debate you, but you'll have to explain what the debate will be about.

Moderator note: 4 off-topic posts that attempted to debate the issue in the Proposal thread have been deleted. Members are advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates forum, available in sticky threads.

Pedophilia and issues resulting from it need to be analyzed from both socialogical and biological perspectives within human society. If enough ground is found behind pedophilia and its results, negative or perhaps positive, than it should be classified as science and not pseudoscience.

I agree the terms at this point are ambiguous. I think we should stipulate the definition of the terms in question to the satisfaction of those interested before the debate begins.

I propose that the definition of pedophilia used in this debate be the present definition in the DSM.[1] (http://www.helping-people.info/articles/dsm.htm)

I propose that the term pseudo-science be defined by the present definition existing in Wikipedia.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

Please offer any other links to definitions that you think may stipulate the terms better.

The premise is ridiculous, it is neither science nor pseudoscience, it is a label we place on a certain kind of behavior.

Yes, it is a label based upon behavior, but that label is also identified as fitting in a criminal and mental illness category by popular definitions. In order for pedophilia to fit into a criminal or mental illness category it must survive the scrutiny of science, otherwise the legal system and psychiatric definitions are faith based (pseudo-science).

I will be arguing that it cannot survive scientific scrutiny.

I think I see where you're coming from ancient, although I think your wording is off; is your 'devil's advocate' argument that the term 'pedophilia' is not a 'psychological disorder' as wikipedia puts it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile)?

I will be arguing 'devils advocate' which is against popular opinion. To answer your question, yes, I will be arguing that it cannot be a 'psychological disorder' if put under scientific scrutiny.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Are you saying pedophilia isn't real? Or that it is "normal"? Or what?

Nobody ever said it was a science.

I might be willing to debate you, but you'll have to explain what the debate will be about.

I will argue it is not a real "disorder". I will argue that it is "normal".

I will argue that US law and the DSM definition use only a pseudo-scientific basis for establishing it as a crime and mental illness.

I am proposing the addition of a rule to ensure the debate has an air of formal logical clarity about it.

Proposed Rule: All arguments must follow a syllogism pattern. For example, each paragraph would contain two or more premises sentences followed by a conclusive sentence.


When it snows, the streets get wet. It is snowing. Conclusion: The streets are wet.

I think it will keep each sides arguments clearer and enable the other side to make better counter arguments.

I will argue it is not a real "disorder". I will argue that it is "normal".

I will argue that US law and the DSM definition use only a pseudo-scientific basis for establishing it as a crime and mental illness.


I propose that the definition of pedophilia used in this debate be the present definition in the DSM.[1] (http://www.helping-people.info/articles/dsm.htm)

I propose that the term pseudo-science be defined by the present definition existing in Wikipedia.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

Ok. I'm willing to debate you on this - not because I have strongly held views on the issue but because I'm interested to hear your arguments.

On the other hand, because I claim no special interest or expertise here, I would be happy to defer to somebody more knowledgable, if there are any takers. I suggest we give it a couple of days before starting the debate thread, to see if anybody else wants to take this on - either to support you or to argue against.

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

You will start the debate, arguing the affirmative.

I think your requirement for syllogism is unnecessarily strict. Would you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules (see sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum)? If you want to alter anything, let me know and we can negotiate further.

I think your requirement for syllogism is unnecessarily strict. Would you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules (see sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum)? If you want to alter anything, let me know and we can negotiate further.

I think Roy Wood Sellars in his book Essentials of Logic [1] (http://books.google.com/books?id=Qa9V8nOZiP4C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=purpose+of+syllogism&source=bl&ots=1LGOKGf2tr&sig=xkFl2VpM1qWN8N3eSkKq4gaHHPc&hl=en&ei=srWeSbbKGJDoNdvtoOkN&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA163,M1) says describes the purpose of syllogism well:


When the purpose (purpose of syllogism) is the limited one of testing the consistency of a given argument, the syllogism is a valuable instrument. It offers a technique by which the argument can be analyzed and its parts seen in their mutual relations. We can decide whether all the elements of a complete argument are present, whether the terms are really only three in number, whether the middle term has the same meaning in the two premises, whether the conclusion follows, etc. In short, the syllogism and its theory presents the would-be analyst with satisfactory methods for his task. He knows what to demand and where the dangers lie. Relatively to this purpose, the syllogism can no more be outgrown than human though itself.

In order for an argument to be consistent with the scientific method [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), it must use arguments that are logical deduction (although deductive arguments may also have inductive properties). Syllogisms are the basis of logical deduction. Therefore, the use of syllogism based arguments is necessary to make an argument consistent with scientific method.

We have two choices in light of this:

1. spend time making solid clean syllogistic arguments, or
2. spend time trying to untangle the opponents mess only to have to put it into a deductive form to ensure we are understanding the other clearly.

If we have to untangle to opponents argument to ensure we understand them, we are doing the work of putting it into a clear deductive form (syllogism) for them. This is not the responsibility of the opponent. A deductive from will be necessary anyway. I say we get it out of the way with the use of syllogisms.

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

A statement representing the general argument, through the use of the word "disorder" it implies the inclusion of the psychiatric definition, but excludes the criminal aspect. I would like to included the criminal aspect.

In light of this, I would rephrase the topic to be:

Pedophilia is not a crime or mental illness.

But, there is one more important factor. Upon what basis are these conclusions arrived at? This is why I brought up the term pseudo-science.

I'm going to argue that pedophilia cannot be classified as crime or mental illness using the scientific method, but rather it can only be classified as a crime or mental illness through a faith based view, pseudo-science.

In light of this, I would rephrase the topic to be:

Pedophilia cannot be scientifically proven to be a mental illness or crime.

I am proposing the addition of a rule to ensure the debate has an air of formal logical clarity about it.

Proposed Rule: All arguments must follow a syllogism pattern. For example, each paragraph would contain two or more premises sentences followed by a conclusive sentence.



I think it will keep each sides arguments clearer and enable the other side to make better counter arguments.

I would also like to suggest three more rules extending from the standard rules: Time Extension, Stipulation Argument, and a Judge.

Time Extension
A debater may request an extension of time past the two day time limit. If the opponent agrees to the length of the extension, then the days of extension is granted. If the opponent disagrees, then the standard two day rule defaults. Any number of extension requests may be made during the two day period or granted extension.

Stipulation Argument
A debater may move for a stipulation argument. This forces the debate into a discussion involving an unclear term used by one of the debaters. A stipulation argument will begin something like this:


I am unclear with your use of the term abuse, would you please give me a definition?


I mean that it hurts someone.


Ok, so we both can agree that abuse must show some sign that a person is hurt?


Yes.

Both parties agree to the definition, so this is how the term is used. At this point the stipulation argument is over and the debate continues.

All posts made during a stipulation argument are not counted toward the maximum four posts. Once a stipulation argument begins it must end before the debate continues. Posts during a stipulation argument must be directed only at classifying a term in question; it is not a place to continue the main debate; it is not a place to make off-topic posts. To ensure the stipulation argument ends, the inclusion of a third party as a judge may be necessary. In the case of an impasse the judge will look over the argument of the term and make a final deductive argument for how the term is to be stipulated for the debate. Once both parties agree on how it will be used or in the case of intervention of a judge, each debater can change any part of their argument where the stipulated term causes a change in meaning. This may mean an argument in response may have to be edited.

Judge
A judge will be added as a third party for the debate. The primary purpose of a judge is to ensure a stipulation argument ends. Anyone interested in being a candidate for a judge must make it known in the proposal thread. Once the thread proposer picks an opponent, they must both agree upon a judge before the debate begins.

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

You will start the debate, arguing the affirmative.

Mind you, the affirmative would be: pedophilia IS a disorder.

Actually in this topic either side could start the debate...

Mind you, the affirmative would be: pedophilia IS a disorder.

Actually in this topic either side could start the debate...

Affirmative language is important for clarity, I agree. Thanks for getting us back on track.

I think the topic should be: Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

I will argue that US law and the DSM only use the term pedophilia in a psuedo-scientific way in terms classification of a mental illness and classification as a crime.

Judge
A judge will be added as a third party for the debate. The primary purpose of a judge is to ensure a stipulation argument ends. Anyone interested in being a candidate for a judge must make it known in the proposal thread. Once the thread proposer picks an opponent, they must both agree upon a judge before the debate begins.

I volunteer to be a judge.

I think the topic should be: Pedophilia is pseudo-science.

Well, this sentence is meaningless, as Spidergoat pointed it out in post #2.


I will argue that US law and the DSM only use the term pedophilia in a psuedo-scientific way in terms classification of a mental illness and classification as a crime.

What you might trying to say could be:

- pedophilia is not a mental illness
- pedophilia is definition dependent
- the definition of pedophilia is not scientific, (it is age or society dependent)

So which one is it? If it is #3, you might be right, but a law doesn't need to be scientific, it just need to be based on society's concensus.

Also the law's and the DSM's definition of pedophilia can be different. Being gay was classified as a mental illness in the early 70s in the DSM, then society's attitude changed, so did the definition.

I propose that if it is to be debated, then it must be spelt correcly

paedophilia

Well, this sentence is meaningless, as Spidergoat pointed it out in post #2.



What you might trying to say could be:

- pedophilia is not a mental illness
- pedophilia is definition dependent
- the definition of pedophilia is not scientific, (it is age or society dependent)

So which one is it? If it is #3, you might be right, but a law doesn't need to be scientific, it just need to be based on society's concensus.

Also the law's and the DSM's definition of pedophilia can be different. Being gay was classified as a mental illness in the early 70s in the DSM, then society's attitude changed, so did the definition.

It's not important whether or not US law does or doesn't care if they are scientific. In terms of this issue, my position is to prove they don't hold themselves to the highest standards (those of science).

Definitional difference between the US law and the DSM is irrelevant. It is not necessary to have consistent definitions between entities (in this case the US law and DSM) for a person to find them both to be pseudo-scientific.

As far as your choices go, they don't cover my position in general. In light of of your comments, I'll try to be more specific:

Pedophilia as defined and used by US law and the DSM is pseudo-scientific.

I volunteer to be a judge.

I agree to you being the judge, pending my opponents approval.

Pedophilia as defined and used by US law and the DSM is pseudo-scientific.

So what you are trying to say (and debate) is not that pAedophilia is pseudoscientific, but that the definition of pAedophilia is pseudoscientific

I volunteer to be a judge.

I agree to you being the judge, pending my opponents approval.

Woot :-)

I think what ancientregime is saying is that pedophilia/paedophilia is not a mental illness if simply defined as attraction to minors. Am I right ancientregime?

Weird topic, but not boring : shrugs :

Weird topic, but not boring : shrugs :

And 'that's what it's all about' (some children's song, laugh :-p).

If we have to untangle to opponents argument to ensure we understand them, we are doing the work of putting it into a clear deductive form (syllogism) for them. This is not the responsibility of the opponent. A deductive from will be necessary anyway. I say we get it out of the way with the use of syllogisms.

I will not agree to debate you if my posts are to be judged and restricted to some 3-statement strict syllogistic format, because I am worried the debate will become more about format than the actual topic. I warrant that if I debate you my arguments will be logical nonetheless. If they are not, then you can use that as a point against me in the debate - just as I can for you.


A statement representing the general argument, through the use of the word "disorder" it implies the inclusion of the psychiatric definition, but excludes the criminal aspect. I would like to included the criminal aspect.

In light of this, I would rephrase the topic to be:

Pedophilia is not a crime or mental illness.

How about "Defining pedophilia as a crime or mental illness is pseudoscientific?"

Actually, I'm not too worried about the exact wording of the topic. Debaters' understanding of the topic can be hashed out in the debate itself. I would agree to "Pedophilia is pseudoscience", if that's what you want.


I would also like to suggest three more rules extending from the standard rules: Time Extension, Stipulation Argument, and a Judge.

I agree to your time extension rule. I suggest that requests for time extensions (if any) be made and agreed to in the Discussion thread for the debate, to keep the debate thread clean.

I think your stipulation argument rule is unnecessary, but will agree to it if that is what you want.

But if we cannot agree on a definition during a stipulation argument, then what? The judge decides?

I agree to scott3x being the judge, if a judge becomes necessary.

---

In summary, I agree to your conditions, apart from the restriction of arguments to strict syllogisms. If you can agree to drop that requirement, I invite you to open the Debate and Discussion threads and we can begin. You, as proposer of the debate, go first.

I assume the debate will be according to Standard Rules, other than the additional rules you have suggested.

pAedophilia

Nobody gives a shit and nobody spells it that way. Spelling also changes according to USAGE....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I will not agree to debate you if my posts are to be judged and restricted to some 3-statement strict syllogistic format, because I am worried the debate will become more about format than the actual topic. I warrant that if I debate you my arguments will be logical nonetheless. If they are not, then you can use that as a point against me in the debate - just as I can for you.

If you refuse to use a syllogism then I will have to request some other formality. There has to be some structure for things to be considered formal. What do you think about this:


Arguments will be formed with paragraphs. Paragraphs consist of sentences. Sentences are of two types: premises and conclusions. Each paragraph may contain any number of sentences. Each sentence must be a premise, except the last sentence of a paragraph. The last sentence of a paragraph must always be a conclusion. A conclusion must never appear anywhere else in a paragraph except the last sentence.

Each concluding sentence of each paragraph must provide support for your overall argument.

I agree to scott3x being the judge, if a judge becomes necessary.

Woot :-). ancientregime, I must make one point that I didn't before, possibly because I wasn't sure that James would even accept a judge of any sort; from what I understand, James is the head of sciforums. As such, even if I am called in to judge something in the debate between you and James, I would still consider it as a type of 'lower court' judge, one that can be overturned rather swiftly; It is my understand that, in sciforums atleast, James has the ability to pull the plug on the forum entirely and so any judgements against something he believes him can truly only be made with his consent.

For my part, I can disagree and even be miffed when decisions are made that I don't have control over, but I've had 2 forums myself (both fairly small though) and when push comes to shove, there really can only be one head as far as I'm concerned.

If you refuse to use a syllogism then I will have to request some other formality. There has to be some structure for things to be considered formal. What do you think about this:


Arguments will be formed with paragraphs. Paragraphs consist of sentences. Sentences are of two types: premises and conclusions. Each paragraph may contain any number of sentences. Each sentence must be a premise, except the last sentence of a paragraph. The last sentence of a paragraph must always be a conclusion. A conclusion must never appear anywhere else in a paragraph except the last sentence.

Each concluding sentence of each paragraph must provide support for your overall argument.

I'm not James, but I personally find that the above conditions may be a bit too strict. As a matter of fact, I find debating rules in general to be fairly stultifying at times which I think is part of the reason that I made my last debate as short as possible and quickly moved over to the discussion thread which (I hope) can still keep a certain rule which I cherish above all others while dispending with the rest.

The rule that I think can be a godsend is a rule against certain insults; from my long experience posting, I have found that certain insults can be immensely detrimental to any serious discussion. As soon as one person starts with it, at the very least it tends to discourage the other party from responding, and can lead to a complete paralysis of the thread. At worst, the other party also slides into the muck; at that point, whether it stops or not is almost irrelevant as discussion can become absolutely worthless.

The rest can be helpful in certain contexts, but I prize the 'bar against certain insults' above all others. However, having seen James in various situations, I really don't think that insults is something you have to worry about with him; I find him to be like me, rather light on the insults :-). Admittedly, in his case it helps that his views are more 'normal', as sometimes even someone who isn't insulting can deeply offend if their views are unconventional enough.

I decided to just write up all the rules (tentative at this point pending agreement with a challenger). James (or anyone else that wants to challenge), let me know if you would like to negotiate any changes.

Participants
There will be three participants. One debating the affirmative, one debating the negative, and a Judge for Stipulation Arguments (See Stipulation Argument below).

Argument Format
An entire argument will be formed using paragraphs. Each paragraph is considered a single argument. Paragraphs consist of sentences. Sentences are of two types: premises and conclusions. Each paragraph may contain any number of sentences. Each sentence must be a premise, except the last sentence of a paragraph. The last sentence of a paragraph must always be a conclusion. A conclusion must never appear anywhere else in a paragraph except the last sentence.

It is your duty to ensure the your premises support your conclusion. It is also your duty to ensure the concluding sentence of each paragraph provides support for your overall argument.

Stipulation Argument
A person may demand a Stipulation Argument if they disagree or are confused with the use of a term. The Stipulation Argument may be made only after an opponent posts an argument. Once started, the Stipulation Argument must come to an end for the debate to continue. A Stipulation Argument comes to an end one of two ways: both agree on the terms new meaning or an impasse is reached. If an impasse is reached then the Judge decides on the definition of the term in question. The Judge must provide an decision using syllogism.

An example Stipulation Argument:


I'm confused as to what you mean by abuse.




I mean harm occurs.




So, abuse is an act that causes harm?




Yes.




So would you agree we stipulate that abuse means: an action that causes harm?




Yes



Both parties agreed, so the term abuse will be stipulated as: an action that causes harm. If the Stipulation Argument changes the intended meaning of the term abuse in previous argument posts, then both parties may edit their arguments to accommodate the stipulation. These edits must occur before another Stipulation Argument can be made or a rebuttal is made.

Steps of the Debate

An argument is posted. The opponent may: (a) make a stipulation argument(s), then post a rebuttal argument, or (b) just post a rebuttal argument.

This occurs for four turns and the debate ends, unless extra posts are agreed upon.

Additional Rules

A maximum of four posts may be made by each, excluding Stipulation Argument posts. Extra posts may only occur under two conditions: both parties agree to an extra post or the Judge finds it necessary to allow for additional posts. A party should only ask the Judge as a last resort.

The debate will close if a post is not made in two days. A specific extension of days is only allowed if both parties agree.

A word may not fall into Stipulation Argument more than once, unless the judge makes an exception. A debater may request an exception from the Judge.

Woot :-). ancientregime, I must make one point that I didn't before, possibly because I wasn't sure that James would even accept a judge of any sort; from what I understand, James is the head of sciforums. As such, even if I am called in to judge something in the debate between you and James, I would still consider it as a type of 'lower court' judge, one that can be overturned rather swiftly; It is my understand that, in sciforums atleast, James has the ability to pull the plug on the forum entirely and so any judgements against something he believes him can truly only be made with his consent.

For my part, I can disagree and even be miffed when decisions are made that I don't have control over, but I've had 2 forums myself (both fairly small though) and when push comes to shove, there really can only be one head as far as I'm concerned.

According to the tentative rules, you would only be making a final decision on the definition of a word if we both cannot come to an agreement. This does carry a lot of authority and can determine the outcome. If you are very biased, you could trap one of us into not being able to make a rational argument (even though there is one possible), resulting in a loss. If you are fair, it will ensure the stronger argument wins.

I feel comfortable with James even if he is the admin. No one else is challenging at this point anyway.

I'm not James, but I personally find that the above conditions may be a bit too strict. As a matter of fact, I find debating rules in general to be fairly stultifying at times which I think is part of the reason that I made my last debate as short as possible and quickly moved over to the discussion thread which (I hope) can still keep a certain rule which I cherish above all others while dispending with the rest.

I know syllogisms are stultifying. Informally formatted arguments all must be taken apart and put into a syllogistic format for testing. I don't agree this should be put on the burden of your opponent.

I'm willing to compromise although, because I know it's a very rigorous expectation to state things in the most explicit and logical way possible.

So I made some clear changes.

In syllogism a person must make all their premises connected. I don't have this requirement, although anyone who does not connect their premises should do so with warning that the conclusion may not logically follow or unnecessary information is presented.

I do require all paragraphs have premises, except the last sentence. Premises represent proposals and facts. These facts in consideration all have a consequence when considered together which results in a conclusion. So, I require a conclusion at the end.

Woot :-). ancientregime, I must make one point that I didn't before, possibly because I wasn't sure that James would even accept a judge of any sort; from what I understand, James is the head of sciforums. As such, even if I am called in to judge something in the debate between you and James, I would still consider it as a type of 'lower court' judge, one that can be overturned rather swiftly; It is my understand that, in sciforums atleast, James has the ability to pull the plug on the forum entirely and so any judgements against something he believes him can truly only be made with his consent.

For my part, I can disagree and even be miffed when decisions are made that I don't have control over, but I've had 2 forums myself (both fairly small though) and when push comes to shove, there really can only be one head as far as I'm concerned.

According to the tentative rules, you would only be making a final decision on the definition of a word if we both cannot come to an agreement.

Ah. How interesting. I mention this only because I was just having trouble with someone over the definition of a word (in my case, God). You're right, it can certainly kill a discussion.



This does carry a lot of authority and can determine the outcome. If you are very biased, you could trap one of us into not being able to make a rational argument (even though there is one possible), resulting in a loss. If you are fair, it will ensure the stronger argument wins.

I would argue that even if I'm fair and one argument is stronger then the other, it doesn't really guarantee anything in the short term. When it comes to some issues, I believe that society is simply too engrained and it may take a long time indeed before things change.



I feel comfortable with James even if he is the admin. No one else is challenging at this point anyway.

True. Honestly, though, I think James would be one of the best people to debate with. He's gentle with his arguments; for someone like me who is rather sensitive to the harsher types of debating, it's a godsend. I've been talking about 9/11 for a while, but other then him saying that it was an immature debate (atleast that was my impression of what he said), he's never really gone further. Which I sometimes think is a shame, but who knows. There are some people who knew people who were killed on 9/11 and if James is one of them or even if it's a subject that's deeply emotioanl for him (something that's not exactly uncommon), it may be actually be fortunate that he's never actually really debated me on it.

I know syllogisms are stultifying. Informally formatted arguments all must be taken apart and put into a syllogistic format for testing. I don't agree this should be put on the burden of your opponent.

I'm willing to compromise although, because I know it's a very rigorous expectation to state things in the most explicit and logical way possible.

So I made some clear changes.

In syllogism a person must make all their premises connected. I don't have this requirement, although anyone who does not connect their premises should do so with warning that the conclusion may not logically follow or unnecessary information is presented.

I do require all paragraphs have premises, except the last sentence. Premises represent proposals and facts. These facts in consideration all have a consequence when considered together which results in a conclusion. So, I require a conclusion at the end.

Ok. I assume you've simply done more of this formal debating type of thing than I have. I seem to have managed alright with my perhaps more primitive approach ;-).

If you are fair, it will ensure the stronger argument wins.




I would argue that even if I'm fair and one argument is stronger then the other, it doesn't really guarantee anything in the short term.

I don't agree. I demand a Stipulation Argument for the word fair.:D

If you are fair, it will ensure the stronger argument wins.

I would argue that even if I'm fair and one argument is stronger then the other, it doesn't really guarantee anything in the short term.

I don't agree. I demand a Stipulation Argument for the word fair.:D

Laugh :-). Fine; from thefreedictionary.com's 8th definition:
Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.

Rules are easy enough. What's logical and ethical though; i mean, there's a whole -forum- in sciforums dedicated to ethics and morality and I think that logic is similarly hard to pin down. Put simply, sometimes even brilliant minds make mistakes in mathematical equations. In many ways, I think one could argue that math is pure logic and yet mistakes are still made. Language is by no means pure logic. You rightly realize the importance of the definition of words; but there may be certain definitions of words that James refuses to let go of, just as I have refused to let go of my definition of God. So that's one issue.

The other issue also revolves around language- perhaps it's that every word counts and while both you and James may feel that you mean the same thing when you use various words, it may not, in fact, be true. This, in turn, can cause you to see each other's arguments as mistaken and thus not be able to come to an agreement.

-However-, despite all this, I do believe it's all worth the effort. I believe that with enough discussion on important topics, the truth can be finally revealed to everyone.

I propose that if it is to be debated, then it must be spelt correcly

paedophilia

While it may have originally been spelt that way, nowadays I think most people spell it pedophilia. I don't have a problem with the possibility that those young 'uns have gone in there and changed the spelling of a word ;). Fortunately, I don't think that most people mind the different spelling...

While it may have originally been spelt that way, nowadays I think most people spell it pedophilia. I don't have a problem with the possibility that those young 'uns have gone in there and changed the spelling of a word ;). Fortunately, I don't think that most people mind the different spelling...

Ah you mean it's some yankish corruption of the Queen(lovery kraut that she is)'s English

Ah you mean it's some yankish corruption of the Queen(lovery kraut that she is)'s English

Yeah, laugh ;-).

ancientregime:

I already said that I will not agree to a debate in which my writing style is forced into some kind of recipe. If my posts are illogical, that can be pointed out by you in your posts. However, I will not be held to a strict structure where each paragraph must be composed of premises and conclusions in a particular order etc. If you wish to structure your posts like that, that's up to you, but I will structure my arguments how I want to structure them.

I have already agreed to all your other rules. If you will drop your rule about the formatting of paragraphs, then we have a debate. If you're inflexible about this, then I'm out.

ancientregime:

I already said that I will not agree to a debate in which my writing style is forced into some kind of recipe. If my posts are illogical, that can be pointed out by you in your posts. However, I will not be held to a strict structure where each paragraph must be composed of premises and conclusions in a particular order etc. If you wish to structure your posts like that, that's up to you, but I will structure my arguments how I want to structure them.

I have already agreed to all your other rules. If you will drop your rule about the formatting of paragraphs, then we have a debate. If you're inflexible about this, then I'm out.

Ok. I agree. I was waiting to see how the rule situation would work out before I started the actual writing of the argument. I will be posting soon. If it takes longer than two days I will at least let you know I'm working out some details.

Links:

Debate thread
Discussion thread