TWIM hosts debate on contemporary topics in philosophy, with special emphasis on philosophy of religion. Formal but informal, we are basically a group of dedicated volunteers, something like a bowling league for internet debate. Participation is open and suggestions are welcomed.
Scheduled Debates
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 Peter Hurford vs. cl on the Evidential Problem of Evil, modified Medium Letter format. Peter will argue that needless suffering exists, ergo belief in the traditional Abrahamic God is not justified. The (tentative) judges for this debate are Daniel Vecchio (Theist), Andrés Ruiz (Agnostic), and Matt DeStefano (Atheist).
Debate Challenges
If you would like to challenge somebody to a debate, please leave a comment stating the claim you wish to address, your preferred format(s), and your desired opponent. After that I’ll talk to the judges and we will attempt to schedule the debate.
2-4-2012 cl challenges Luke Muehlhauser to debate Muehlhauser’s claim that value monism is false. If accepted, Luke shall choose the debate format.
2-4-2012 cl challenges Adam Lee (a.k.a. Ebonmuse) to a real-time (Long Thread format) debate on Lee’s claim that there is “no evidence for the existence of the soul.”
2-4-2012 cl challenges John Danaher to debate (Long Letter format) cl’s claim that free will does not necessarily entail at least one instance of moral evil in heaven [cf. the so-called Problem of Heaven].
1-1-2012 cl challenges John Loftus to a real-time (Long Thread format) debate on Loftus’ claim that “one must always ask for positive evidence for that which they believe as true.”
1-1-2012 cl challenges Vox Day to debate Day’s claim that, “one must always assume, until it is demonstrated otherwise, that an atheist is a lying snake who will deceitfully redefine the language to suit his arguments at need.” If accepted, Vox shall choose the debate format.
1-1-2012 cl challenges Phil Stilwell to debate any claim of his choice.
Rules, Formats
Formatting options allow flexibility to accommodate a variety of schedules and commitment levels. The following rules and formats are intended as breathable guidelines, flexible options, or general parameters, subject to change, allowing participants to fine-tune a debate according to individual preferences and needs. For example, if participants are pressed for time and want to extend a Short Letter debate to 1 week instead of 3 days, that’s fine. If you really want to debate somebody but “don’t have the time,” surely you can commit to a one hour exchange in the combox! Simply put, there should be no excuses. No reason not to debate. We’re also open to new rules and formats, so feel free to share your ideas in the comments.
Short Thread Format
Opponents go head-to-head in the combox for 60 minutes.
Long Thread Format
Opponents go head-to-head in the combox until one or both opponents throw in the towel.
Short Letter Format
Three short rounds consisting of an opening piece by the challenger (1000 words), rebuttal (500 words), and closing statements (250 words each). Takes place over the course of 3 days.
Medium Letter Format
Four extended rounds consisting of an opening piece by the challenger (2500 words), rebuttal (1250 words), rejoinder from the challenger (1250 words), and closing statements (625 words each). Takes place over the course of 1 week.
Long Letter Format
Five extended rounds consisting of an opening piece by the challenger (4000 words), rebuttal (2000 words), rejoinder from the challenger (2000 words), second rebuttal (1500 words), and closing statements (1000 words each). Debate takes place over the course of 3 weeks.
Two Minute Response Rule
Penalty for failing to respond to your opponent’s claim in less than 2 minutes. Penalty values must be decided by the judges prior to the debate. Applies to Thread Format debates only.
Additional Rejoinder Rule
Add a rebuttal or rejoinder to any Letter debate.
Modified Judging Rule
By default, debates are scheduled with three judges: one theist, one strong atheist, and one agnostic (or weak atheist). Participants can agree to add judges or skew their balance. For example, a theist who was particularly convinced of their position might stack the odds in her opponent’s favor by requesting that all judges be atheist.
Judging
Unless Modified Judging is in effect, debates will be set up with 1 (strong) atheist judge, 1 agnostic (or weak atheist) judge, and 1 theist judge, in the interest of impartiality. Debates can also be judged by the commentariat, where no official judging takes place and commenters vote for one debater or the other based on their own criteria, over a one-week period. And it’s not either-or. A debate could also be formally judged and judged by the commentariat. With regard to formal judging, a person does not have to be on this list to judge and we are always on the lookout for new volunteers, but each person on this list is tentatively available to judge:
Daniel Vecchio (Theist) Daniel is a graduate student of philosophy who writes mostly in the areas of Christian philosophy, logic, and metaphysics (website, blog).
Jayman (Theist) Author of the Biblical Scholarship blog.
Peter Hurford (Atheist) Author and coder of Greatplay.net.
Adamoriens (Agnostic) Canadian, former Calvinist, aspiring professional pilot and author of Being Of Perpetual Helm.
Crude (Theist) Author of the Crude Ideas blog.
Andrés Ruiz (Agnostic) Author of Thy Kingdom Come (Undone) blog.
Matt DeStefano (Atheist) Former evangelical Christian with a BA in Philosophy (concentration in Logic & Philosophy of Science), and author of SoulSprawl blog.
cl (Theist) Publisher, screenwriter, author, hobbyist programmer and host of TheWarfareIsMental. Non-denominational Christian.
Scoring Options
100 Point Sliding Debaters begin with 100 points, points are detracted for various errors. Totals are averaged. Specific scoring details are agreed upon and announced before the debate commences.
Upvote / Downvote A Boolean system where judges vote any given round either “up” or “down.”
