Debate on morality with Dr. Jason Gastrich

[Francois Tremblay]

Dr. Jason Gastrich and I are preparing a text debate. It will take place simultaneously on iidb.org and Christianwebsite.com.

The topic will be : "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint".

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Dr. Jason Gastrich and I are preparing a text debate. It will take place simultaneously on iidb.org and Christianwebsite.com.

The topic will be : "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint".

The parameters you need to hammer out with Jason are listed here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=56978) for your consideration.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the "Dr." from, but to the best of my knowledge, Jason doesn't have a PhD and nor is he an MD.

Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

"(a) The topic of the debate."

Already posted.


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

I am taking the atheistic position, and start first.


"(c) The scope of the debate."

Not sure what this designates exactly.


"(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate)."

Not yet decided.


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

In turns.


"(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations)."

5000 words.


"(g) The maximum duration between statements."

Hmmm... not established yet.


"(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed)."

I don't see any reason to disallow quotes.


"(i) The starting date of the debate."

Not yet decided

I will tell Jason about this thread, if he wants to give his own input.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

"(c) The scope of the debate."

Not sure what this designates exactly.


The official mouthwash of the debate... :p

But seriously, it refers to the area covered by the debate. It can be either general or really specific. For example, if it was a debate on the Age of the Earth, the scope might be really general like "geology and astronomy" or something more specific like "radiometric dating and Big Bang cosmology."

In your case, I presume it will be an open ended philosophical debate on the pros and cons of nontheistic and theistic morality.

Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

"In your case, I presume it will be an open ended philosophical debate on the pros and cons of nontheistic and theistic morality."

Yes, that seems right.

[Silent Dave]

Jason Gastrich claims the title "Dr." on the basis of an Honorary ThD given to him by the Shepard Bible College, an organization accredited by Gastrich's OCCM organization. I personally think that this is unprofessional on Gastrich's part, and I do not acknowledge his title of Doctor, for the same reason that I would not expect him to acknowledge my title of Colonel.


On the subject of Gastrich, he has proven in the past to be very problematic to moderate. He has been repeatedly chastized over violating FDD and IIDB regulations in his debate statements, and the tardiness of his submitting his statements has been the rule rather than the exception. We have bent over backwards to accomodate his behavior and his excuses -- including a run for the governor of California, which netted him either 11 or 13 votes, I forget which -- in two lengthy debates thus far. Other IIDB regulars will probably look forward to a third debate, as the last two have proven both educational and highly entertaining for nontheists, but from a moderator's stance, I do not relish the prospect.


I would be willing to approve this debate upon the following two conditions being met:

1) The rules state that on a debater's first rules infraction, he will be given a warning, and on the second and subsequent infractions, he may be forfeited at the moderators' discretion. By participating in this debate Gastrich agrees that he will not be given any leeway in this whatsoever; two strikes, and he's out. (As for Franc28, while we will make every effort to moderate him fairly, we will not hold him to the same rigid standard as we will hold Gastrich; his past behavior has given us no reason to do so.)

2) The moderation of the debate will take place on IIDB, and nowhere else. The participants may copy their statements to another website, subject to IIDB administrative approval, but the person(s) responsible for posting the content on that website must agree, in writing and in public, to be bound by our decisions as moderators. For instance, if we forfeit one the participants from this debate and bar him from making further statements, the other website agrees not to publish any further debate statements from that person, whether such statement be labeled accurately or inaccurately (i.e. "closing remarks").


Short of these two conditions being met, I am inclined to disallow the debate from taking place here on IIDB, and to require Gastrich to take his endeavour, whatever one chooses to call it, to another venue.


Dave

[Jason Gastrich]

OCCM doesn't "accredit" any person or organization. It is a professional membership organization. OCCM is not an academic accreditation body.

Over a year ago, OCCM's board voted and gave Shepherd Bible College a membership because they are preaching the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ; nothing more and nothing less. See http://occm.org for what OCCM does, OCCM's members, OCCM's board, etc.

Anyhow, as long as Francois is held to the same standards and rules, I agree to these standards and rules. Anything less would be unfair. If "Silent Dave" thinks that we should be held to different standards and rules, then I will appeal to other moderators and admins at IIDB.

Since "Silent Dave" has a bias against me, evidenced by his last post, I will not accept him as a moderator for this debate. Someone else like Nightshade (Jason) will need to moderate. I do not feel that "Silent Dave" can be fair and balanced and moderate this debate judicially; partly evidenced by his "two rules" that required different standards and rules for two, debate participants.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Silent Dave]

OCCM doesn't "accredit" any person or organization. It is a professional membership organization. OCCM is not an academic accreditation body.

Over a year ago, OCCM's board voted and gave Shepherd Bible College a membership because they are preaching the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ; nothing more and nothing less. See http://occm.org for what OCCM does, OCCM's members, OCCM's board, etc.


If that is indeed the case, you might want to mention it to the Shepherd Bible College; they have OCCM listed on their Accreditation (http://www.tfsshepherduniversity.com/Accreditation.htm) page, under the heading ACCREDITATION. In any case, it is widely considered unprofessional to use the title "Dr." on the basis of an honorary degree.



Anyhow, as long as Francois is held to the same standards and rules, I agree to these standards and rules. Anything less would be unfair. If "Silent Dave" thinks that we should be held to different standards and rules, then I will appeal to other moderators and admins at IIDB.


After consulting with an administrator, I withdraw the first condition. You and Francois will be held to the same standards and rules in this debate -- namely the rules set forth in the FD(CS) Rules and Procedures. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=56978)

To quote a section from that document . . .


The first time a debate participant violates a debate parameter or FD(CS) procedure during an actual debate, he or she will be given a warning. If he or she commits a subsequent infraction, the FD moderators may, at their discretion, declare a forfeit.


That is the standard to which you will be held in this debate, and Francois will be held to the exact same standard. You are strongly encouraged, however, to amend your frowned-upon behavior and to hew closely to the debate standards and parameters. I emphasize the word "strongly."

As of now, the second condition stands.



Since "Silent Dave" has a bias against me, evidenced by his last post, I will not accept him as a moderator for this debate. Someone else like Nightshade (Jason) will need to moderate. I do not feel that "Silent Dave" can be fair and balanced and moderate this debate judicially; partly evidenced by his "two rules" that required different standards and rules for two, debate participants.

Sincerely,
Jason

What "two rules?" I listed two conditions for the debate to take place, one of which I have rescinded and the other which applies to you and Francois equally.

Nightshade and myself jointly moderate all of the debates in FDD. Therefore, if you debate in FDD, then you will indeed accept me as moderator (co-moderator, actually) for this debate. That's simply how it is. Rest assured that we are both fair and balanced, and can moderate your debate judicially; fully evidenced by the fact that, in your last debate with us, you survived beyond your first two statements.

Any moderating decisions I make are, of course, subject to administrative override; the Administrators are already aware of your complaint against me, but if you wish, you may go to IIDB Bugs, Problems & Complaints (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=16) and reiterate it. As a moderator, I am required to defer to whatever decisions the Administrators make. I must tell you, however, that I am not losing any sleep over the possibility of being overridden on this score.

Incidentally, is there any particular reason why you are putting my handle in quotation marks?


Dave

[The Other Michael]

I have no doubts about Silent Dave's ability to remain neutral (and I believe I can reasonably expect that the rest of the Administrator team feels likewise), but I can see his points in re past behaviors of a debate participant possibly pointing towards there being a problem for the moderators in a current debate.

If both participants agree to a given set of rules, the Administrators have no problems with the Moderators enforcing those rules equally. It is up to the participants to follow the rules or suffer the consequences. The rules can be enforced equally strictly or equally laxly, as the Moderators decide.

I don't see why the moderators should bend over backwards to give one side or another the benefit of the doubt (or an especially elastic interpretation of the rules of the debate). IIDB has, I think, a well-deserved reputation for letting all sides be presented, and there is no need to overcompensate and give an "opposing" side any special treatment to forestall being charged with being unfair.

The audience can probably be entrusted to judge fairness on their own.

cheers,
Michael
Administrator

[Jason Gastrich]

If that is indeed the case, you might want to mention it to the Shepherd Bible College; they have OCCM listed on their Accreditation (http://www.tfsshepherduniversity.com/Accreditation.htm) page, under the heading ACCREDITATION. In any case, it is widely considered unprofessional to use the title "Dr." on the basis of an honorary degree.

You're looking at a very old page. Here is their new page: http://www.sbcollege.net/Accreditation.htm . If you read the title of the page and the words about OCCM, it would be impossible to conclude that OCCM is an accreditation body.

After consulting with an administrator, I withdraw the first condition. You and Francois will be held to the same standards and rules in this debate -- namely the rules set forth in the FD(CS) Rules and Procedures. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=56978)

To quote a section from that document . . .

That is the standard to which you will be held in this debate, and Francois will be held to the exact same standard. You are strongly encouraged, however, to amend your frowned-upon behavior and to hew closely to the debate standards and parameters. I emphasize the word "strongly."

I'm glad the admins encouraged you to be a fair moderator. I'm glad you obliged. Praise the Lord.

As of now, the second condition stands.

What "two rules?" I listed two conditions for the debate to take place, one of which I have rescinded and the other which applies to you and Francois equally.

Nightshade and myself jointly moderate all of the debates in FDD. Therefore, if you debate in FDD, then you will indeed accept me as moderator (co-moderator, actually) for this debate. That's simply how it is. Rest assured that we are both fair and balanced, and can moderate your debate judicially; fully evidenced by the fact that, in your last debate with us, you survived beyond your first two statements.

I'll accept your co-moderation. I'm glad Jason is a co-moderator and I'm also happy to know the Admins are aware of this issue.

Any moderating decisions I make are, of course, subject to administrative override; the Administrators are already aware of your complaint against me, but if you wish, you may go to IIDB Bugs, Problems & Complaints (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=16) and reiterate it. As a moderator, I am required to defer to whatever decisions the Administrators make. I must tell you, however, that I am not losing any sleep over the possibility of being overridden on this score.

I have nominal faith in Jason and the rest of the crew at IIDB to be fair, amicable, and congenial.

Incidentally, is there any particular reason why you are putting my handle in quotation marks?

As an internet forum, debate co-moderator, is there any particular reason why you brought up my run for Governor in a thread Francois began to discuss details regarding his desire to debate me?

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[Jason Gastrich]

"(a) The topic of the debate."

Already posted.

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

I am taking the atheistic position, and start first.

"(c) The scope of the debate."

Not sure what this designates exactly.

I liked Jason's comment. Let's keep this debate fresh and minty. ;)

"(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate)."

Not yet decided.

How is 7 rounds, Francois? The last round will be for summary statements only.

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

In turns.

"(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations)."

5000 words.

"(g) The maximum duration between statements."

Hmmm... not established yet.

Is one week acceptable to you, Francois? I'd like to implement a rule that if one of us has an emergency or a schedule overload/conflict that we can contact a moderator and request an extension of 3-7 days.

"(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed)."

I don't see any reason to disallow quotes.

Yes, quotes are fine.

"(i) The starting date of the debate."

Not yet decided

I will tell Jason about this thread, if he wants to give his own input.

Francois, I'm content with you starting any time next week.

Sincerely,
Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Is one week acceptable to you, Francois? I'd like to implement a rule that if one of us has an emergency or a schedule overload/conflict that we can contact a moderator and request an extension of 3-7 days.


Dave and I very ambivalent about this. Why not just make the maximum duration between statements 2 weeks?

Incidentally, what's the arrangement with Christianwebsite.com so far, if any?

As Dave said, we'll both make the commitment to be fair and balanced. However, we strongly encourage that you make the commitment not to repeat the mistakes of the past (i.e. solicitations, disparaging remarks, and lates).

Jason

[Silent Dave]

You're looking at a very old page. Here is their new page: http://www.sbcollege.net/Accreditation.htm . If you read the title of the page and the words about OCCM, it would be impossible to conclude that OCCM is an accreditation body.


The title of the page is "Accreditation."




I'm glad the admins encouraged you to be a fair moderator. I'm glad you obliged. Praise the Lord.


On the contrary, I am being extremely unfair, to a number of different parties (including, I believe, any just Lord that might exist), in allowing you to get away with so many shenanigans. However, it is sometimes necessary to bite the bullet and accept such shenanigans, for a variety of different reasons -- for example, avoiding the image of extreme partisanship in moderating that goes with certain other internet boards that I will not mention here.

As for the administrators, the only thing that they encouraged me to do in this case is to advise you that your past behavior in FDD debates is unacceptable, and that the golden age of extreme accomodation has passed into the days of yore.




I'll accept your co-moderation.
(...)
I have nominal faith in Jason and the rest of the crew at IIDB to be fair, amicable, and congenial.


Two things. First, you in fact do not accept my co-moderation, because you have no option about accepting or rejecting my co-moderation. Had you gone the other way in your thinking, you would still find me co-moderating your debate. It's that simple. The only alternative would be to not participate in FDD. Second, do not be misled into thinking that Jason and I are playing a game of "good cop, bad cop." I may be more direct and forceful in my prose than Jason, but in the vast majority of cases, the moderating decision that one of us makes is the same decision that the other would make. Rest assured that Jason will be no more lenient upon you in this debate than I will be.





Incidentally, is there any particular reason why you are putting my handle in quotation marks?

As an internet forum, debate co-moderator, is there any particular reason why you brought up my run for Governor in a thread Francois began to discuss details regarding his desire to debate me?


Yes. I was citing it as an example of an excuse you have given us for the lateness of your statements in past debates, for the purpose of explaining why you have been problematic to moderate in the past. I am, as you say, a debate co-moderator, and I felt that I would have been negligent in my duties if I had not addressed this problem prior to the start of any debate.

In the future, if you have no intention of answering a question I ask you, simply state that you decline to answer the question rather than responding with another, unrelated question. It would be more expedient, and more honest.


Dave

[Jason Gastrich]

Dave and I very ambivalent about this. Why not just make the maximum duration between statements 2 weeks?

If you and Dave are ambivalent, then shouldn't you two come to a mutual understanding? Anyhow, I like 1 week intervals. The optional extension makes sense because emergencies can come up and schedules can become full without notice. This could happen with any time frame, but a 1 week duration between posts seems appropriate to me. Any thoughts or opinions, Franc?

Incidentally, what's the arrangement with Christianwebsite.com so far, if any?

You won't have anything to do with it, so don't worry.

As Dave said, we'll both make the commitment to be fair and balanced. However, we strongly encourage that you make the commitment not to repeat the mistakes of the past (i.e. solicitations, disparaging remarks, and lates).

I suggest to Francois that we allow each other to use part of the first round post as an introduction. I also suggest that we allow each other liberty regarding web links, solicitations, etc. in our introduction. In other words, I'd like Francois to promote his book and web site in the intro part of his first post and I'd like to do the same.

Let me quickly address your claim of "disparging remarks." You are surely saying this due to my conclusion that Sean McHugh was deliberately lying with some of his arguments. I concluded that some of his arguments were so outrageous and baseless that he must have been acting wilfully deceptive.

Is it truly inappropriate for a debate participant to make a conclusion like that? Are you saying that you'd like me to steer clear of those kinds of conclusions in this debate?

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[Silent Dave]

If you and Dave are ambivalent, then shouldn't you two come to a mutual understanding? Anyhow, I like 1 week intervals. The optional extension makes sense because emergencies can come up and schedules can become full without notice. This could happen with any time frame, but a 1 week duration between posts seems appropriate to me. Any thoughts or opinions, Franc?


As I've already indicated, the days of extreme accomodation have passed into history. If you like 1 week intervals, then I strongly suggest that you agree to 2 week intervals, and simply post your statements a week ahead of deadline when possible. This would be in your best interest because, short of death -- your own -- we will not be inclined to accept any excuses for late submissions, nor to grant any extentions beyond what is allowed in the FD(CS) Rules.

If the nature of your life and your scheduling is such that you cannot commit to posting statements within consistent intervals, of whatever length, then you should not take part in formal debates on IIDB.




You won't have anything to do with it, so don't worry.


Yes we will, and yes we shall. This condition for the debate has already been stipulated: the person(s) responsible for posting the content on the other site must agree, in writing and in public, to be bound by the decisions of the IIDB moderators, and to not post further statements in this debate from someone whom we have forfeited, whether such statements are labelled correctly or incorrectly (i.e. "closing remarks"). If that does not happen, then this debate will not take place on IIDB. Period.




I suggest to Francois that we allow each other to use part of the first round post as an introduction. I also suggest that we allow each other liberty regarding web links, solicitations, etc. in our introduction. In other words, I'd like Francois to promote his book and web site in the intro part of his first post and I'd like to do the same.


Soliciations are, and will continue to be, forbidden. Period.


Dave

[Jason Gastrich]

At this point, I'm appealing to an Administrator, again. I feel it is inappropriate for any IIDB co-moderator or official to attempt to make me sign away my freedom of speech outside of the IIDB forum. Right now, I have no desire to enter into any sort of contract on IIDB that would limit my posting or words in another forum. Furthermore, I feel it is grossly inappropriate for an IIDB co-moderator to even suggest that Franc and I should do so.

If you are an IIDB Administrator, please contact me and/or post in this thread. If I do not hear from one within 48 hours, I will contact some, many, or all of them.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[The Other Michael]

You and your opponent certainly retain copyright to your respective words, as the moderators do to their words.

If we are going to facilitate a debate we want assurances that any duplication of what goes on here, which includes the words of the participants (and the moderators are definitely participants) is accurate.

We don't want IIDB seen as being party to any chicanery that might possibly take place with allegedly accurate duplication of the debate elsewhere.

So the participants are free to do with their words as they wish, but they can't include anything by the moderators without their (and IIDB's) permission, and without that permission they'll not be moderating the debate.

It seems an odd sticking point - if the participants intend to accurately report the debate elsewhere there should be no problems with them explicitly agreeing to accurately report the debate and to have those people hosting the copy of the debate to also give their assurances that they will do so accurately. Once the debate is duplicated then others are free to associate their comments with the debate, but we want assurances that there won't be any changing of the portrayal of the debate as it actually took place (if it does).

cheers,
Michael
Administrator

[Jason Gastrich]

You and your opponent certainly retain copyright to your respective words, as the moderators do to their words.

If we are going to facilitate a debate we want assurances that any duplication of what goes on here, which includes the words of the participants (and the moderators are definitely participants) is accurate.

We don't want IIDB seen as being party to any chicanery that might possibly take place with allegedly accurate duplication of the debate elsewhere.

So the participants are free to do with their words as they wish, but they can't include anything by the moderators without their (and IIDB's) permission, and without that permission they'll not be moderating the debate.

It seems an odd sticking point - if the participants intend to accurately report the debate elsewhere there should be no problems with them explicitly agreeing to accurately report the debate and to have those people hosting the copy of the debate to also give their assurances that they will do so accurately. Once the debate is duplicated then others are free to associate their comments with the debate, but we want assurances that there won't be any changing of the portrayal of the debate as it actually took place (if it does).

cheers,
Michael
Administrator

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your message.

I appreciate your explanation. It is reasonable and understandable.

I agree to avoid posting any comments by the moderators. I also agree to avoid changing my posts as I paste them into ChristianWebSite.com. Franc will be pasting his posts, so you'll need to get his assurance about his posts.

Cheers,
Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thanks for the input, Michael.

Jason, we just need to clarify a few sticking points.

First, in your prior debate with McHugh, I felt that some of your comments crossed the line from attacking your opponent's arguments to attacking the character or motivations of your opponent. The formal debate standards for civility are somewhat higher than the regular fora and we expect your cooperation. If you think your opponent's arguments are blatantly false in a formal debate, then use logic and evidence (in criticism of his arguments) to present your best case.

Second, if you require a 3-7 day extension occasionally, then we insist that the maximum duration between statements be greater than 1 week to accommodate this.

Third, as Dave pointed out, promotions or solicitations of material are strictly forbidden. You may use it as a reference that is relevant to an argument or perhaps briefly allude to it when introducing yourself, but you cannot show links that offer commericial sale of it, promotions, or do anything else that we haven't thought of that violates the spirit of the rule (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79160):

(2) You will not advertise or solicit other members to buy, sell or peruse any products or services through this discussion forum.

If you agree with these conditions, then we can proceed.

Jason

[Jason Gastrich]

Thanks for the input, Michael.

Jason, we just need to clarify a few sticking points.

First, in your prior debate with McHugh, I felt that some of your comments crossed the line from attacking your opponent's arguments to attacking the character or motivations of your opponent. The formal debate standards for civility are somewhat higher than the regular fora and we expect your cooperation. If you think your opponent's arguments are blatantly false in a formal debate, then use logic and evidence (in criticism of his arguments) to present your best case.

Fair enough. Perhaps I adopted such a debating style based on my IIDB with Farrell Till. He came after me over and over. Nonetheless, I agree to debunk arguments without going after Franc's motives.

Second, if you require a 3-7 day extension occasionally, then we insist that the maximum duration between statements be greater than 1 week to accommodate this.

It's difficult to say if I'll ever need an extension. Do you know what I mean? Right now, I don't anticipate needing one. However, that's why I brought up the topic of an extension as needed. Is requesting an extension due to an emergency or a schedule overload too much to ask? Please note that I'm not suggesting that late posting be tolerated more than once.

Third, as Dave pointed out, promotions or solicitations of material are strictly forbidden. You may use it as a reference that is relevant to an argument or perhaps briefly allude to it when introducing yourself, but you cannot show links that offer commericial sale of it, promotions, or do anything else that we haven't thought of that violates the spirit of the rule (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79160):

If you agree with these conditions, then we can proceed.

Jason

Good enough. I can abide with our agreement from last time; which was basically allowing me to mention my ministry and book, with no sales links, and give a link to my main web site.

Franc needs to weigh in on these issues. Perhaps he is feeling like his voice is irrelevant and he will go along with everything.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Silent Dave]

I agree to avoid posting any comments by the moderators. I also agree to avoid changing my posts as I paste them into ChristianWebSite.com. Franc will be pasting his posts, so you'll need to get his assurance about his posts.



You (the two of you) must, in addition, agree to refrain from adding to your posts, or adding posts, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, to your side of the debate. You must, in addition, preserve the content of your debate statements as they appear here when duplicating them, including any deletions and comments made by Nightshade or myself.

You, Francois, and the person(s) responsible for posting maintaining content at the other site(s) must state their intention to comply with these requirements, here in this thread, before the debate is allowed to proceed. Furthermore, if at any time I find anyone at the other site in breach of these requirements, I will terminate the debate at once, and/or take whatever steps I deem appropriate and necessary to balance the situation.

If, as Michael pointed out, you do intend to report accurately portray the debate as it takes place here, then you should have no problem with these requirements.


Dave

[Silent Dave]

Fair enough. Perhaps I adopted such a debating style based on my IIDB with Farrell Till. He came after me over and over.


When I last checked, he still was coming after you. Out of sheer curiosity, whatever happened to those other debate challenges he's issued you?




(snip)

It's difficult to say if I'll ever need an extension. Do you know what I mean? Right now, I don't anticipate needing one. However, that's why I brought up the topic of an extension as needed. Is requesting an extension due to an emergency or a schedule overload too much to ask?


To repeat what I said above: If the nature of your life and your scheduling is such that you cannot commit to posting statements within consistent intervals, of whatever length, then you should not take part in formal debates on IIDB. What you (among others) don't seem to understand is that high standards are set for IIDB formal debates; they are not something that you can put off and pick up again when you feel like it. We will not be issuing extentions in this debate short of an extremely dire circumstance, such as the unexpected death of an immediate family member. Therefore, plan accordingly when negotiating a time interval with Francois.


Dave

[Jason Gastrich]

No problem.

At this point, I'm going to pause and wait for Francois to post. I can agree to 5,000 things, but if he doesn't, then IIDB won't be hosting this debate.

Right now, I'm going to close this browser window. After Francois emails me and notifies me that he has posted in this thread, I will return and finalize the arrangements. He needs to catch up, weigh in, and agree to IIDB's terms if we are to proceed. I don't know him very well, so he may tell you guys to take a flying leap.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Silent Dave]

Just for the record, then, Jason, you agree that you will post your part of the debate on the other website exactly as it appears here on the IIDB, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that you will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that you will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate.

Is that correct? Yes or no?


Dave

[Francois Tremblay]

I apologize for the lack of response on this thread on my part. The email subscription system stopped notifying me, for some reason.

After this discussion, here is my proposition :



(a) The topic of the debate is "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint".
(b) I am taking the atheistic position, and start first. Jason is taking the Christian position.
(c) Open-ended philosophical debate on the pros and cons of nontheistic and theistic morality. (as proposed by one of the mods earlier)
(d) The length of the debate should be 5 rounds.
(e) Taking turns, I start (given that I invited him and take the positive position).
(f) The maximum length of each statement : 5000 words.
(g) The maximum duration between statements : 1 week.
(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted : fully.
(i) The starting date of the debate : April 9th.

I presume that the 2-weeks clock will start ticking on April 9th ? If I must post the opening case on the starting date, then I would prefer April 12th.

In all cases I will reproduce all posts with no alteration whatsoever and refrain from commenting on them. I will also briefly mention my organizations/products without sale links. I will not personally attack Dr. Gastrich or conduct myself in an untowards way (of course, I reserve myself the right to ask him question about his own sense of morality, just as I'm sure he will - this is within the topic and therefore to be expected).

[Francois Tremblay]

After reflection, I may have committed an omission. When stating the topic as "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint", I was implicitly assuming that it was understood that we were comparing atheism to Christianity, since Dr. Gastrich is arguing from the Christian position, but I did not state it. Should this be stated explicitly in the topic ?

[Jason Gastrich]

Just for the record, then, Jason, you agree that you will post your part of the debate on the other website exactly as it appears here on the IIDB, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that you will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that you will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate.

Is that correct? Yes or no?

Dave

Yes. This is correct.

Jason

[Jason Gastrich]

After reflection, I may have committed an omission. When stating the topic as "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint", I was implicitly assuming that it was understood that we were comparing atheism to Christianity, since Dr. Gastrich is arguing from the Christian position, but I did not state it. Should this be stated explicitly in the topic ?

I think the resolution is fine.

I have two issues with your proposed debate parameters.

First, I suggest we extend the time between posts to 10 days. This will help accomodate my busy schedule and any, possible unforseen things that may make me even more busy.

Next, I suggest we debate for 7 rounds. My previous written debates have been 7 (http://iidebate2.jcsm.org) and 10 (http://iidebate1.jcsm.org) rounds. Since the last round is for summary statements, I don't feel that 4 rounds of original information is enough. If you want to tell me why you feel it is, then please do so.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

I think the resolution is fine.

So I presume you are going to argue from the Christian position specifically ?


First, I suggest we extend the time between posts to 10 days. This will help accomodate my busy schedule and any, possible unforseen things that may make me even more busy.

Fine.


Next, I suggest we debate for 7 rounds. My previous written debates have been 7 (http://iidebate2.jcsm.org) and 10 (http://iidebate1.jcsm.org) rounds. Since the last round is for summary statements, I don't feel that 4 rounds of original information is enough. If you want to tell me why you feel it is, then please do so.

Debates meander, wind down, and stagnate into nothingness rather quickly, at least in my experience. However, I didn't know that the last round was the final statements.

Here is, therefore, my new proposition :

(a) The topic of the debate is "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint".
(b) I am taking the atheistic position, and start first. Jason is taking the Christian position.
(c) Open-ended philosophical debate on the pros and cons of nontheistic and theistic morality. (as proposed by one of the mods earlier)
(d) The length of the debate should be 7 rounds.
(e) Taking turns, I start (given that I invited him and take the positive position).
(f) The maximum length of each statement : 5000 words.
(g) The maximum duration between statements : 10 days.
(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted : fully.
(i) The starting date of the debate : April 9th.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I presume that the 2-weeks clock will start ticking on April 9th ? If I must post the opening case on the starting date, then I would prefer April 12th.


I just wanted to clarify how the 10 day duration works.

First, if the official start date begins on April 9th, then you will have until April 19th to post your first statement. Also, there is no set calendar for the debate statements. If you posted your first statement on April 9th, Jason could post his response on April 10th if he wanted to. Once a debater's statement is up, any time within the 10 day duration is fair game for the opponent to post a response.

Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

Allright then, April 9th is good for me.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

It looks like we pretty much have everything. Dave or I will set up the formal debate thread in FDD (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17) on April 9th.

Franc, since you're new to II formal debates, I just wanted to remind you that the formal debate forum is fully moderated. When you post there, your statement will remain invisible until validated by a moderator.

This thread will now be closed.

Jason

[Silent Dave]

Not quite yet, Jason. First we have to determine the person(s) responsible for posting content on the other website, and have that person(s) post in this thread that they agree with this statement:

"I agree that I will post and maintain the debate on the other website exactly as it appears here on the IIDB, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate."

Francois must also agree to these conditions.This must be done before the debate begins.


Dave

[Francois Tremblay]

I agree that I will post and maintain the debate on the other website exactly as it appears here on the IIDB, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate.

[Jason Gastrich]

Not quite yet, Jason. First we have to determine the person(s) responsible for posting content on the other website, and have that person(s) post in this thread that they agree with this statement:

"I agree that I will post and maintain the debate on the other website exactly as it appears here on the IIDB, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate."

Francois must also agree to these conditions.This must be done before the debate begins.

Dave

I have been chatting with "theophilus" from ChristianWebSite.com's forums. He is a moderator. I will ask him to post in this thread.

If my memory serves me correctly, Franc has told people in the Infidelguy.com forum that he will be posting the debate there. Are you going to need Reggie Finley's word, so that he will not change anything after the posts have been made in his forum?

At this point, we also need the words of Jason and Dave. We need them to agree to the following statement:

I agree that I will maintain the debate on the IIDB website exactly as it appears, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Silent Dave]

I have been chatting with "theophilus" from ChristianWebSite.com's forums. He is a moderator. I will ask him to post in this thread.


If that's the same theophilus who posts here at IIDB, and if he has authority to speak for all of the appropriate ChristianWebSite.com forum staff in this matter (which can be confirmed by Nightshade and I), then that will be fine.




If my memory serves me correctly, Franc has told people in the Infidelguy.com forum that he will be posting the debate there. Are you going to need Reggie Finley's word, so that he will not change anything after the posts have been made in his forum?


I am personally familiar with Reggie Finley, and I know him to be trustworthy and reliable. If you feel that it would be necessary to have his word in this matter as well, then go ahead and have him post here as well; otherwise, I will not require it.




At this point, we also need the words of Jason and Dave. We need them to agree to the following statement:


Who is "we?" Who, exactly, is requiring this of us?




I agree that I will maintain the debate on the IIDB website exactly as it appears, including any deletions or comments made by the moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, in any way whatsoever, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate.


I agree subject to the override of the IIDB administrators that I will maintain the debate on the IIDB website exactly as it appears once the debate has concluded, including any deletions or comments made by the IIDB moderators and administrators, that I will refrain from adding to or changing any part of these posts during and after the debate, except insofar as such additions or changes might be necessary for the purposes of moderating the debate, and that I will refrain from adding any additional posts to the debate, whether or not they are correctly labelled as such, before, during or after the debate, except insofar as the addition of such posts are deemed appropriate to balance the scales in the event of a breach of promise by either debater and/or the person(s) non-IIDB website that is hosting the duplicate content.

If you're not content with that, or if you or anyone else uses it as an excuse to withdraw or alter the promise that you made above, then the debate will not take place on IIDB.


Dave

[Francois Tremblay]

Honestly, I don't see why we need all these procedures. I have vouched for the integrity of the debate's reproduction for my side. If anyone modifies them in any forum and I become aware of it, I will stop sanctioning the said reproduction and attempt to delete it. Reg is a busy man and has better to do than muck with debates he is not taking part in.

Jason, do you agree or not with my last proposition ? If so, let us proceed.

[Maximum Velocity]

All,

I am "theophilus" at CWS. After discussing this with the site administrator and the other moderators we have decided that we WILL NOT host this debate.

Feel free to start a thread and argue amongst yourselves.

:boohoo:

[Francois Tremblay]

All,

I am "theophilus" at CWS. After discussing this with the site administrator and the other moderators we have decided that we WILL NOT host this debate.

Excuse me for being curious but... could you elaborate on the reasons ? Is it something I can help ?

[Jason Gastrich]

All,

I am "theophilus" at CWS. After discussing this with the site administrator and the other moderators we have decided that we WILL NOT host this debate.

Feel free to start a thread and argue amongst yourselves.

:boohoo:

That's fine. Based on this post and two private messages, I understand theophilus telling us that we can post our debate in CWS, but they will not moderate it or treat it as a formal debate. This is fine with me.

I know Reggie Finley and I don't find him to be particularly honest and Dave's endorsement of him isn't reassuring. Lately, he lost a debate between Eric Lounsberry and Dan Barker. Eric called me and told me that he wiped the floor with Barker. This made us conclude that foul play was involved. Reggie appeared to go on a hunt for the debate, perhaps to destroy it, then found 2/3 of it or something.

Let Reggie post in this thread and affirm the agreement if he wants to host this debate.

I'm also waiting to hear Nightshade's agreement on the statement I posted.

If Reggie agrees and Nightshade agrees, then I'm ready to go.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

We don't need Reggie's approval any more than you need the CWS'. Both will not moderate the debate, only IIDB is moderating this debate. We have already agreed on that.

[Maximum Velocity]

First, I am NOT the "theophilus" that posts on this board.

Second,

Excuse me for being curious but... could you elaborate on the reasons ? Is it something I can help ?

In the spirit of the boards, we do not host formal debates. There are too many other websites willing to do so, re: TOL, IIDF, etc...

Third, we are not willing to pad Jason's debate resume. He can do his grandstanding somewhere else...along with hawking his book and CD.

IF any of you have any questions or complaints feel free to bring them to CWS. Also be aware that we are NOT looking for a flame war with this site (you guys would win... ;) !!!

My opinions IN NO WAY reflect the opinions of the site owner or moderation staff of CWS.

All research done on Jason has been performed by my husband and is posted in the "Moderators Only" forum at CWS.

Direct any questions to jeff@christianwebsite.com .

Thank you.

[Ebonmuse]

No problem.

At this point, I'm going to pause and wait for Francois to post. I can agree to 5,000 things, but if he doesn't, then IIDB won't be hosting this debate.

Right now, I'm going to close this browser window. After Francois emails me and notifies me that he has posted in this thread, I will return and finalize the arrangements. He needs to catch up, weigh in, and agree to IIDB's terms if we are to proceed. I don't know him very well, so he may tell you guys to take a flying leap.

Sincerely,
Jason

Excuse me, Jason, but you still owe me a debate. You agreed to this on talk.origins a while ago, or don't you remember? I was waiting for you to post your opening statement, but you never did, and you apparently left the group without giving an explanation. I was willing to be charitable and wait, but now I find that you're trying to organize one with someone else on another venue? Shall I take this to mean you've backed out of ours?

[Silent Dave]

If I correctly understand what's happening here, then this debate will NOT be co-hosted at any other website, be it ChristianWebSite, InfidelGuy, or what have you. That being the case, the second condition is rendered moot. If I find the debate showing up on another website, and the rendition of the debate is inaccurate, I will take whatever steps on IIDB I deem appropriate to balance the situation. Aside from that, I see no reason why this debate cannot proceed as scheduled. This thread will therefore be closed.

A couple of things I want to clear up regarding Jason Gastrich. First, he said above that he didn't find Reginald Finley to be trustworthy because a hardware error caused the loss of a debate he hosted between Eric Lounsberry and Dan Barker. Eric said that he wiped the floor with Barker (which doesn't mean much, since if Lounsberry is anything like Gastrich, then there's no way in hell he'd come away from it and say, "It didn't go so well. I mean, I still think that I'm right, but there are a number of things that I could have done better on"), and Gastrich said that this caused them to conclude that Finley purposely lost the debate. Lounsberry stated, however, that he did NOT believe that Finley purposely lost the debate, that he DOES believe that it was an accident, and that he did NOT intend to convey that message to Gastrich, and told Gastrich as much.

Second, in my research of the above events, I also happened to discover that, last September, Gastrich instituted the following policy on his own message boards:


"All non-Christians will be allowed a maximum of 500 posts or one year of membership on the board. If after 500 posts or 1 year they have not converted to Christianity, they are banned forever."


I wish to make clear that Jason is free to do whatever he wish with the boards that he himself controls, and I would not have anyone think otherwise. However, that little policy of his shall henceforth be at the forefront of my mind should Jason once again insinuate that, as a moderator, I am neither ethical nor fair.


Dave