Through a mutual friend Project 315 had the pleasure of meeting Dave Luttbeg. Dave is an atheist willing to defend what he believes to be true in the public square. Our introduction over breakfast resulted in a very fun interaction over the legitimacies (or lack thereof) of our respective worldviews. Dave has graciously agreed to a debate against (and hosted by) Project 315. The following parameters and initial topic (understanding the debate may stretch to other topics) were agreed upon by both Dave and Project 315...
The topic will be – Does the existence of objective moral values and duties point to a Creator?
(1) Project 315 will open the debate by responding to the blog topic first.
(2) Dave will respond second.
(3) Once a response has been posted the opposing side will have five days to respond.
(4) In the event a response is not posted within 5 days the side having posted most recently has the floor again for a second consecutive post.
(5) If there is no response after a second consecutive post within 5 days the debate will be declared finished.
(6) Two additional ways for the debate to be declared finished
a. Both sides agree it is over
b. We understand that sometimes logical fallacies are committed inadvertently but if one side continually uses them with reckless abandon the entire discussion may need to be aborted because it will make the discussion too cumbersome to advance.
No “winner” will be declared; it will be up to those following the debate to decide for themselves.
The topic will be – Does the existence of objective moral values and duties point to a Creator?
(1) Project 315 will open the debate by responding to the blog topic first.
(2) Dave will respond second.
(3) Once a response has been posted the opposing side will have five days to respond.
(4) In the event a response is not posted within 5 days the side having posted most recently has the floor again for a second consecutive post.
(5) If there is no response after a second consecutive post within 5 days the debate will be declared finished.
(6) Two additional ways for the debate to be declared finished
a. Both sides agree it is over
b. We understand that sometimes logical fallacies are committed inadvertently but if one side continually uses them with reckless abandon the entire discussion may need to be aborted because it will make the discussion too cumbersome to advance.
No “winner” will be declared; it will be up to those following the debate to decide for themselves.
RSS Feed