TAG Debate

[Jade]

Harry Callahan has challenged me to a debate on the TAG, and I accept. I propose the following topic: "Resolved: The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God proves the existence of the Christian God", with Harry taking the affirmative and myself the negative. The proposed starting date is approximately one month from now (so mid to late March).

[Silent Dave]

Sounds like fun. Have you guys agreed on a set of parameters? Please post them in this thread once you have.


Dave

[Jade]

Well, Harry and I have tentatively agreed on the following structure (which is obviously quite preliminary and may not have anything at all to do with the actual debate):

The debate will be modular, by which I mean it will be split into sections; each section (or module) consisting of three rounds, for a total of six posts a module (three per person). The posts will be simultaneous, and --while obviously the content will be up to the writer-- they should follow a structure like that described below:

Round One: Initial arguments from both sides presented.
Round Two: Rebuttals to the oppositions' case.
Round Three: Defense against opponent's rebuttal, summation of module.

Harry and I have agreed to at least four modules, with the possibility of a fifth (described below) to be decided when we reach near the end of the fourth module. After the modules are completed, there will be a final overall summation round, in which no new arguments may be presented. In terms of word length, we are so far going with 5000 for the main rounds and 1500-3000 for the final summation round.

The modules will be as follows:
1) A "General Debate" on the merits of the TAG (Harry) versus the anti-TAG (Jade).
2) "Logic", in which we debate the question "Does Christianity/atheism account for and ground logic?"; and/or "Can a Christian/atheist use logic and be consistent with his presuppositions?"
3) "Science", in which we debate the question(s) "Can a Christian/atheist have scientific knowledge and still be consistent with his presuppositions?"; and/or "Does Christianity/atheism ground or undermine the practice of science and the acquisition of scientific knowledge?"; and/or "Can Christianity/atheism account for the uniformity of nature?"
4) "Morality", in which we debate the question "Are moral categories meaningful in Christianity/atheism?"

Possibilities for a fifth module include: i) an "Interrogatory Module", in which each person asks a set of questions of the other, answers those put to him, and then summarizes his thoughts and conclusions about his opponent's answers; and ii) an "Extension of Debate Module", in which debate on one topic --or on multiple topics-- continues for another set of rounds.

We have yet to set a calender (required for simultaneous postings), but it is likely to start in mid-to-late March and continue onwards at ten day intervals.

That's all for now, folks!

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Harry/Jade,

Just so you know, Silent Dave and I just need to confer before we can accept these parameters. We may ask you to limit the debate to 3 modules (and a summation round) for a total of 10 rounds.

Otherwise, everything seems complete except for a few things. Just to summarize:

(a) The topic of the debate:

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

TAG (Harry Callahan) versus the anti-TAG (Jade)

(c) The scope of the debate.

See (j)

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

[may require revision]

13 (possibly more -- see(j))

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

Concurrent statements.

(f) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 for the main rounds and 1500-3000 for the final summation round

(g) The maximum duration between statements:

10 day intervals.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted:

(any input here???)

(i) The starting date of the debate:

Undetermined (mid to late March)

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

[may required revision]

Special format:

The debate will be modular, by which I mean it will be split into sections; each section (or module) consisting of three rounds, for a total of six posts a module (three per person). The posts will be simultaneous, and --while obviously the content will be up to the writer-- they should follow a structure like that described below:

Round One: Initial arguments from both sides presented.
Round Two: Rebuttals to the oppositions' case.
Round Three: Defense against opponent's rebuttal, summation of module.

The modules will be as follows:
1) A "General Debate" on the merits of the TAG (Harry) versus the anti-TAG (Jade).
2) "Logic", in which we debate the question "Does Christianity/atheism account for and ground logic?"; and/or "Can a Christian/atheist use logic and be consistent with his presuppositions?"
3) "Science", in which we debate the question(s) "Can a Christian/atheist have scientific knowledge and still be consistent with his presuppositions?"; and/or "Does Christianity/atheism ground or undermine the practice of science and the acquisition of scientific knowledge?"; and/or "Can Christianity/atheism account for the uniformity of nature?"
4) "Morality", in which we debate the question "Are moral categories meaningful in Christianity/atheism?"

Possibilities for a fifth module include: i) an "Interrogatory Module", in which each person asks a set of questions of the other, answers those put to him, and then summarizes his thoughts and conclusions about his opponent's answers; and ii) an "Extension of Debate Module", in which debate on one topic --or on multiple topics-- continues for another set of rounds.

[Jade]

Nightshade,

I thank you for your consideration (and for Silent Dave's). If necessary, it would not be a problem to limit the debate to 3 modules; though perhaps a little disappointing.

As for quotations, we have yet to discuss this. However, I have no problem with outside quotations, so long as they are well referenced and do not take up a significant portion of the actual posts (let's say 20% or less).* As for internal-quoting (i.e. including previously posted material in quotes and then responding line-by-line), I don't know about Harry but I prefer to keep that to a minimum, if possible -- to keep a more professional and less cluttered appearance.

What do you think about all this, Harry?


*Quick question, are the reference notes included in the word count?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jade/Harry,

Silent Dave and I have decided that the maximum number of rounds should remain at 10. Therefore, we ask that you use 3 modules and one summation round. We'll leave it up to you guys what you'd like to discuss in those 3 rounds.

Jade, as to your last question, reference notes and quotes are included in the word count.

Jason

[Jade]

Ah well........crap!

OK, three modules is fine; I guess I can live with just "logic", "science" and "morality"... Harry? What do you think?

[Silent Dave]

Where is Harry, anyway? He's the one that challenged you, Jade, and yet he hasn't shown up in this thread so far. Is he a member of IIDB? The debate cannot proceed unless he voices his agreement to the debate parameters to the moderators.


Dave

[Jade]

He's a member. His absence here (in this thread) so far is largely due (I think) to a) the fact that so far we have mostly been working things out via PM, and b) because he has been rather busy. Hopefully he'll drop on by soon enough.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This is from a discussion from PM's with Jade that we'd agreed to bring here:

Jade wrote:
Ah well...I am beginning to suspect two debates will be better for what I intend anyway (assuming I can extensively reference the first debate in the second). Harry has to agree though, and I am reluctant to tax him with two debates....

Maybe the first one can be short and sweet...(four or five rounds)...

Would it be helpful for me to give you guys a quick summary of the argument I plan to develop? Perhaps that could help you suggest the optimal structure and length, and if it needs to be split into two debates...

Perhaps you can describe what you mean by a "general debate on the merits of TAG". Wouldn't that just be a debate on logic, morality, and science anyway? Wouldn't a "general debate" before the debate on TAG logic, morality, and science be somewhat redundant?

Anyways, Harry needs to put some input here as well.

Jason

[Jade]

Originally posted by Nightshade

Perhaps you can describe what you mean by a "general debate on the merits of TAG". Wouldn't that just be a debate on logic, morality, and science anyway? Wouldn't a "general debate" before the debate on TAG logic, morality, and science be somewhat redundant?

Possible 'General' matters that we can discuss:
- What are Transcendental Arguments (TAs)?
- Are TAs a viable way of 'grounding' the truth, or are they hopelessly circular?
- Is God a proper object for Transcendental analysis?
- Is God "properly basic"/"the ultimate presupposition"?
- Do presuppositionalist explanations for why and how people disbelieve in God make sense?

You know, stuff like that....Harry could probably add more from his side of the aisle, but he hasn't been very talkative for the past few days.

Is that helpful?

[Jade]

I have another solution to our limit problem....

Since the presuppositional attack and defense places so much emphasis on competing worldviews, we could split the debate into two phases; in the first phase the two debaters state their worldviews (starting from the basic presuppositions and working upwards to show how their worldview accounts for logic, science and morality, and in general how other worldviews fail to do so), but do not directly respond to each other; then in the second phase they grill each other and defend themselves. Like so:

PHASE ONE
Round One:
Opponents each state their basic presuppositions. So for Harry, this would involve explaining what God is and what characteristics he has (which later he will use to attempt to ground logic, science and morality), as well as the epistemological relationship humans have with God (i.e. Dependence). For me, I will attempt to state the fundamental presuppositions of materialism.

Round Two:
Opponenets each try to show how their worldview accounts for and grounds logic and deductive reason. They can also try to anticipate criticisms of their worldviews and head them off. Further, they can make general criticisms of other worldviews (though obviously they cannot make specific criticisms of their opponents argument because the posts are simultaneous).

Round Three:
Same as for round two, except for Science and induction.

Round Four:
Same, but for morality.

PHASE TWO
Opponents now attempt to rebut each other's fully developed argument, and defend their own. Attacks can be made on any part of the worldview, from any angle. Debate will last four or five rounds. New arguments can be presented, but it is preferable if opponents elaborate their initial worldview rather than switch to new ones.

At the end, there will be a shorter summary round in which no new arguments can be presented.

Total number of rounds: 10 (or 9 if there are only four Phase 2 rounds).

What do you think? (Harry, where are you?)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Jade,

Your proposal sounds good to me. We just need to have Harry's approval.

Jason

[Harry Callahan]

Originally posted by Nightshade
Hi Jade,

Your proposal sounds good to me. We just need to have Harry's approval.

Jason

This all looks very good, and has my approval. If the mods are fine with it it and Jade is, then I have no problems. Thanks for your work and input guys!

- Harry

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thanks Harry. :)

Okay, we just need a few more details before we can make it official.

Here's a summary of the proposed debate parameters again:


(a) The topic of the debate:

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

TAG (Harry Callahan) versus the anti-TAG (Jade)

(c) The scope of the debate.

A debate on the presuppositions that ground logic, science, and morality.

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

9 or 10 rounds.

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

Concurrent statements.

(f) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 for the main rounds and 1500-3000 for the final summation round

(g) The maximum duration between statements:

10 day intervals.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted:

Quotations allowed, so long as they are well referenced and do not take up a significant portion of the actual posts (~20% or less). Internal-quoting (i.e. including previously posted material in quotes and then responding line-by-line) are to be kept to a minimum.

(i) The starting date of the debate:

Undetermined (mid to late March)

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

Special format:

PHASE ONE
Round One:
Opponents each state their basic presuppositions. So for Harry, this would involve explaining what God is and what characteristics he has (which later he will use to attempt to ground logic, science and morality), as well as the epistemological relationship humans have with God (i.e. Dependence). For me, I will attempt to state the fundamental presuppositions of materialism.

Round Two:
The opponents each try to show how their worldview accounts for and grounds logic and deductive reasoning. They can also try to anticipate criticisms of their worldviews and head them off. Further, they can make general criticisms of other worldviews (though obviously they cannot make specific criticisms of their opponents argument because the posts are simultaneous).

Round Three:
Same as for round two, except for Science and induction.

Round Four:
Same, but for morality.

PHASE TWO
Opponents now attempt to rebut each other's fully developed argument, and defend their own. Attacks can be made on any part of the worldview, from any angle. Debate will last four or five rounds. New arguments can be presented, but it is preferable if opponents elaborate their initial worldview rather than switch to new ones.

At the end, there will be a short summary round in which no new arguments can be presented.

Total number of rounds: 10 (or 9 if there are only four Phase 2 rounds).



I assume that these parameters are all good? If so, we just need to two more things for the debate proposal to be accepted.

First, would you guys like to go 9 or 10 rounds? (i.e. do you want 4 or 5 rounds for rebuttal in phase 2 of the debate?) Second, what date do you guys want to start? A calendar for statement deadlines will be set up in 10 day intervals based on the start date.

Jason

[Jade]

Nightshade,

I'm fine with 10 rounds, if Harry is. As for the starting date, I am not entirely sure what my schedule for late March will look like right at the moment. However, I think I will have a firmer idea by March 10th or so; and suggest that we decide then (or thereabouts). Is this OK?

Thanks again, Nightshade....

[Harry Callahan]

Originally posted by Jade
Nightshade,

I'm fine with 10 rounds, if Harry is. As for the starting date, I am not entirely sure what my schedule for late March will look like right at the moment. However, I think I will have a firmer idea by March 10th or so; and suggest that we decide then (or thereabouts). Is this OK?

Thanks again, Nightshade....

Yes Nightshade, I am fine with everything. I am hoping to post by late March, the opening, but will work with Jade on this so we can give you a firm date. And to echo Jade, thanks mods, you guys are some of the best that I have seen in discussion forums - and your work is does not go unoticed.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thanks guys! :)

When you've decided on a start date, just let us know.

In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know how the Formal Debates & Discussion (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) forum works. The FDD forum is fully moderated. That means when you submit a post, it is kept invisible to the forum until validated by a moderator. This works quite nicely for debates involving concurrent statements. When both of you have submitted your statements, we would then validate both statements at the same time -- both statements appear simultaneously to the forum.

Since the debate will take place within 10 day intervals, I don't think it would be practical to set up a calendar like the current Chris McHugh/Ted Drange debate. We will do it the following way. The first concurrent statements (round 1) will be expected to be submitted within 10 days of the start date. After that, concurrent statements for subsequent rounds will be expected within 10 days of the last post from the previous round.

An open calendar allows flexibility since you guys might decide to go at a faster pace. I'm also anticipating that along the way a deadline can't be met due to a family emergency, vacation, or whatever. We're happy to make accomodations in those cases. We just ask that you let us know in advance and send us a request for an extension via PM.

Jason

[Jade]

Nightshade,

That sounds great (I had always wondered how concurrent posting worked).

[Jade]

All right, a couple of new items:

1) The best starting date for me would be Sunday the 28th of this month. If it's urgent to start earlier, I suppose I could do it by the 21st, but it would be a considerable strain and I see no reason to rush into what is essentially a 60 page paper.

2) To further refine the topic of the debate I propose that we debate something like this: "The Christian God vs Materialism: Which grounds Reason, Science, and Morality?" Harry? Do you have a better way of phrasing that (please??), or would you prefer a different angle?

3) Just so we are clear, we will not be debating each other directly for the first four rounds -- it will be like we are delivering papers in sections. Only after we have completely stated our initial argument will we critique and defend each other's paper in the specifics. For instance, I will bring up the Euthyphro argument, but will not be able to directly critique your solution of it until the debate section begins (which coincidently begins right after the round in which I would bring up the Euthyphro problem, but that is beside the point).

4) Uh...I forget what I was going to say here.

This should be interesting. I'm looking forwards to debating with you, Harry!

Best,

JD

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Jade
All right, a couple of new items:

1) The best starting date for me would be Sunday the 28th of this month. If it's urgent to start earlier, I suppose I could do it by the 21st, but it would be a considerable strain and I see no reason to rush into what is essentially a 60 page paper.

Sounds good. Harry, are you okay with Mar. 28th?


2) To further refine the topic of the debate I propose that we debate something like this: "The Christian God vs Materialism: Which grounds Reason, Science, and Morality?" Harry? Do you have a better way of phrasing that (please??), or would you prefer a different angle?

How about "The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God vs. metaphysical naturalism: which has a better grounding for reason, science, and morality?"


3) Just so we are clear, we will not be debating each other directly for the first four rounds -- it will be like we are delivering papers in sections. Only after we have completely stated our initial argument will we critique and defend each other's paper in the specifics. For instance, I will bring up the Euthyphro argument, but will not be able to directly critique your solution of it until the debate section begins (which coincidently begins right after the round in which I would bring up the Euthyphro problem, but that is beside the point).

Yes, don't worry I'm clear on this. :)


4) Uh...I forget what I was going to say here.


Ummm, that you wanted my address so that you can send me a $1000 cheque for setting up the debate? ;)

Anyways, if Harry agrees with your proposed start date then that will make it official.

Jason

[Jade]

Originally posted by Nightshade
about "The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God vs. metaphysical naturalism: which has a better grounding for reason, science, and morality?"

Sounds good, though I prefer 'materialism' rather than 'metaphysical naturalism'; there's less confusion over the word 'matter' than there is over 'natural'....

Yes, don't worry I'm clear on this. :)

Actually I was just making sure Harry was clear on it....

Ummm, that you wanted my address so that you can send me a $1000 cheque for setting up the debate? ;)

Anyways, if Harry agrees with your proposed start date then that will make it official.

Jason
Excellent.

The check is in the mail. I assume you still maintain your old EAC p.o. box.... :D

[Harry Callahan]

Originally posted by Jade
Sounds good, though I prefer 'materialism' rather than 'metaphysical naturalism'; there's less confusion over the word 'matter' than there is over 'natural'....

Actually I was just making sure Harry was clear on it....

Excellent.

The check is in the mail. I assume you still maintain your old EAC p.o. box.... :D


The 28th sounds great guys. I have been really busy with school, but it ends March 17th, so that will give me time on the boards.

- Harry

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Alrighty then, on March 28th we will set up the formal debate thread in FDD. This thread will now be closed.

Jason

Edit (Mar. 25):

There has been a slight change to the proposed topic of debate. Instead of "materialism," Jade will argue for the position of "metaphysical naturalism."