Questions / Suggestions / &tc.

[Rook]

All questions about the Coliseum or suggestions of competitions or anything of the like will be addressed here.

Any addition of competition or modification of the Coliseum's administration will be approved by His Excellency Count Jared.

[Derek Nahigyan]

I've posted several fairly controversial debates, and my question is: can we annul religious beliefs for the sake of arguments? I'd prefer hard facts and stances on the different positions instead of faith. Otherwise, can we consider a religious debate topic as well?

[Rook]

As much as it is foreign and infuriating to us to some people religious beliefs are as real and concrete as science is to us. As a general rule I cannot dispel someone's core thought process. But, being the one who initiated the debate, you may attach any such conditions as you so choose.

If you decide that in the debates you start that religious views are not valid arguments, that's fine, but remember that in other debates where it is allowed you have to accept and rebuttal those arguments there. Or just not debate in those topics, in the same way people who are interested in debating their religious beliefs against scientific principles will leave your topics alone.

Have I made sense?

[Gelare]

Merely as a point of curiosity, don't you think you should wait until someone actually makes a point based on religion before you try to annul them? Just saying. Good topics, though. I was amused to find I didn't even have to go two paragraphs in to see Peter Singer's name.

[Derek Nahigyan]

I'm a fan of religion. I have read the bible, the book of mormon, the satanic bible. I've studied Hinduism and Moksha, as well as Buddhism and the eight-fold path. While these issues I don't believe condemn any religious belief whatsoever, I detest them being used in philosophical debates.
Example, we were discussing the soul. Aristotle said that the best analogy for the soul is: Human is to soul as an Eye is to sight. You cannot locate the sight, it is its function. The problem is, how do you prove it? You can't and that's what faith is, but faith isn't enough reason to refrain from cloning organs or giving to charity, mainly because there are so many faiths and beliefs, it would cause the continuity of the subject to dissipate.
In my Capital Punishment argument, Stephen Nathanson mentions racism in the court room and I believe that is a different argument altogether because now there's a new variable. While I understand that philosophy is used to exploit and point out all the variables and faults any argument can take, it's best, at least for this chamber, to maintain a simple beginning. If it escalates to a point of religion, I would consider it acceptable but the problem I face with religion is the vastness, it's a deus ex machina.

Why don't we kill people, because the bible tells us not to.
Why do we do good deeds even when there's no reward, because the buddha tells us to.
--Bad example since buddhism is more of a philosophy, but you see my point. Religion is an answer and for many people, the only answer, but if we debated solely based on religious beliefs, we wouldn't be able to further the argument.

Annulling religion from the debates prevents offending anyone and leaves the topics open to speculation. I think religion is a great thing, I once wrote a standup bit a while back:
"So, they've found proof that G-D does not exist, and when these scientists brought this up to the Catholic church they protested, begging, 'you can't tell people this! The Bible prevents everyone from looting, stealing, raping, and killing. Surely, you can avoid letting people know that there is no heaven, otherwise we'll have chaos!' The scientists thought this over and said, 'alright, we won't tell them... but we're gonna make fun of you for it.' And that is why we have Scientology; it's solely to mock the establishment of churches and the belief in a higher power, when really they've realized the truth."

Not a great joke, but there's a lot of truth to it.
PS. I've gone to several scientology meetings, but I can't say I understand this belief for certain since it costs money to find out just what it is. The point was however, that it teaches people to be good, even when there are no immediate rewards. Something that noble does not stand to be condemned. In my opinion, it's the fundamentalists who screw it all up.
If the bible, for example--being the most well-known in western culture--were simple taken as stories of fiction, you would learn valuable lessons, like any TV show, book, movie, etc. To take it all literally creates hostility. I'm not saying any religion or belief is wrong especially since it clearly WORKS. But when what you follow becomes hazardous to you, your dependents, and those around you, that's when it is not working.
It creates hostility because they feel obligated to defend themselves and their religion, and since it can not be proven, the best way is to tackle it by numbers. And quite frankly, their numbers are greater than mine.

I want to limit the debate to facts, and spirituality will interfere with that, posing more questions than answers; and, since most these debates don't have answers, it'll sap the energy and enthusiasm out of the debate since there can be no compromise or uncensored open-ended questions.

[Rook]

So not only has the idea of issuing more specific challenges than 'compare your push ups' been submitted, it has also been suggested that there be prizes for winning said competitions.

What would be an appropriate prize, or competition?