INGO Argument Match ...Alpha: In The Big Inning
This is how an INGO Argument Match might work:
Find someone willing to argue or defend a point, make a new thread and add INGO Argument Match in the title, then proceed to whup the snot out of their belief or position and (optionally) whup the snot out of anyone daring enough to attempt to rescue them from you.
Sounds simple enough, right? Sounds like fun, right? Cool, I thought so, too.
In this match, PaulF will be defending an atheist position and I will be tearing it down and ridiculing it from a theist position. This is voluntary.
I will begin by admitting that, as a finite being, I do not, and believe that I cannot fully grasp and comprehend infinity. This will not stop me from discussing what can be known about infinity including the paradoxical nature of attempting to make it fit within or obey our fundamental principles of math. I can only assume that Paul will try to argue the absence of infinity, though I'm not sure how.
I will bring up light, though I admittedly only know a tiny bit about light. I might bring up that light has a measurable speed. When PaulF tries to argue from a position of darkness, I will ask him to first define darkness without defaulting to the mere absence of light (which is mine).
I will take the position of knowledge (that it is possible to know something, even if we can't know all things). If PaulF tries to defend or promote a position of ignorance, I will ask him to define ignorance without defaulting to the mere absence of knowledge.
I will argue heat, leaving Paul to define his belief in [STRIKE]the absence of heat[/STRIKE] cold.
I will argue life, leaving Paul to champion and promote [STRIKE]the absence of life[/STRIKE] death.
I will...
Well, you get the picture. I will win.
This is how an INGO Argument Match might work:
Find someone willing to argue or defend a point, make a new thread and add INGO Argument Match in the title, then proceed to whup the snot out of their belief or position and (optionally) whup the snot out of anyone daring enough to attempt to rescue them from you.
Sounds simple enough, right? Sounds like fun, right? Cool, I thought so, too.
In this match, PaulF will be defending an atheist position and I will be tearing it down and ridiculing it from a theist position. This is voluntary.
I will begin by admitting that, as a finite being, I do not, and believe that I cannot fully grasp and comprehend infinity. This will not stop me from discussing what can be known about infinity including the paradoxical nature of attempting to make it fit within or obey our fundamental principles of math. I can only assume that Paul will try to argue the absence of infinity, though I'm not sure how.
I will bring up light, though I admittedly only know a tiny bit about light. I might bring up that light has a measurable speed. When PaulF tries to argue from a position of darkness, I will ask him to first define darkness without defaulting to the mere absence of light (which is mine).
I will take the position of knowledge (that it is possible to know something, even if we can't know all things). If PaulF tries to defend or promote a position of ignorance, I will ask him to define ignorance without defaulting to the mere absence of knowledge.
I will argue heat, leaving Paul to define his belief in [STRIKE]the absence of heat[/STRIKE] cold.
I will argue life, leaving Paul to champion and promote [STRIKE]the absence of life[/STRIKE] death.
I will...
Well, you get the picture. I will win.
