So, sorry to come into this late, and especially since this may be something of a modification of what I wrote earlier. As I indicated earlier, I had not actually read anything but the opening thread at that time, and I was making a lot of assumptions, it turns out, some of which turn out not to have been true. So here are some remarks, in no particular order.
(1) Having read all that is disagreed on, I think I should not commit to participating in this debate until I have a better sense of (a) the topic, (b) the likely participants on both sides, and (c) the format. I realize I can't nail this completely down. For example, if others say the same thing, then (b) will remain unclear until we all just decide to jump or not.
(2) The only question that particularly interests me is the existence of the Christian God (i.e., the rationality of belief therein). The other topics mentioned seem very interesting, but I don't have much to say about them; and I for one join many of the new atheists (as well as many Christians) in thinking that it's somewhat pointless to consider whether religious belief is helpful, if it's not true; and pointless to consider whether it's unhelpful, if it's true.
This leads to a real doubt about whether I'll end up on the team, because Crazy Anglican is NOT interested in debating this question (a position I respect perfectly well, certainly) and I would very much want him on the team if I were to participate. Ditto with Mujus.
(3) I am traveling and very busy until 6/19. I thought about it a lot today and concluded, with regret, that if I participate I would have defer such participation until after that date.
(4) I strongly endorse and urge the idea of cross-examination questions offered by the debaters, instead of onlookers; and indeed, endorse Thucy's idea of carrying on the whole thing privately.
(5) I feel less sure about Thucy actually rejecting responses that he feels are off-topic. Better I think for him just to enforce the actual rules (word limits, etc.), and leave it up to the debaters to point out off-topic meanderings. Of course, others may disagree, and I'm open to hearing dissent on that. I can certainly see how it would be useful if he did do it. I'd just want him to err on the side of liberality I guess.
(6) This might be a good time to mention that I agree Thucy would be the best moderator I can think of.
(7) I agree judges should be nominated by each side. Rather than Thucy being the last judge, however, I would prefer for the last judge to be somebody OTHER than Thucy that all debaters on both sides had to agree to. But maybe the "Other than Thucy" rule does not make sense? It just feels odd to have the judge on the jury, I suppose.
(8) I do not feel that comfortable with the suggestion that different team members take different roles. The reason is that in general, while I admire the arguments offered by many of my fellow theists on the site, I do not "own" them, and would not, at least generically, feel comfortable stepping in to rebut attacks on them. And similarly, I have my own kinds of arguments I like to use, and I'd much rather be able to defend them myself than have another do it. At the very least, if this were implemented I think a lot more time for preparation would be necessary. But really, I think it would undermine the legitimacy of the event, in my eyes -- nobody would be at their best level, and you'd end up with kind of a made-by-committee argument that maybe nobody much liked.
What might be good instead, in my opinion, is to pair people up. The decision of whom to pair could be left to teams and even deferred until after opening statements. Needless to say, teams could discuss privately about their responses, but the final product in each case would be by one author to one opposing author.
This is just a sketch of an idea, naturally. There are probably many other formats that would work well. I just have doubts about the one suggested.
(9) I think 24 hours seems a little short for some of these phases. I would say 48 seems pretty good. Up to others, though.
Well, I'm sorry to post so many thoughts and conditions. I think debates can be good, but I also feel quite strongly that a bad format or bad circumstances can make a debate instead an exercise in frustration and not very useful for getting the best arguments from each side. If I'm going to spend a lot of time on one, I don't have any interest in the latter, so hence the remarks.
Are you the one who will rule the world?
, you can enjoy the chance to rule the world with The World Wide Schlieffen Plan ( http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=111246 ) . If you can take 10 minutes out of you day for possible world domination, than this deal is for you. In fact this deal is just to good. I'm gonna have to put a time limit of 7 days for this. I would wait that long though. there's only 13 spaces left.
)
)
)
)