Convert Me

Well I have to say I honestly feel outmatched. Con has created a debate in which only Con can win. I wish there was a reset button. Con instigates a debate with a certain resolution, offers no proof nor case to be refuted, awaits a Pro to build a case, offer proof, only so he can change the resolution and smash everything down while standing for nothing. My son does the same thing with blocks. He stares at them until I build him something, then he screams with delight as he swings his arms wildly, sending them back to the floor. Its cute when an 8 month old does it. Not so much here. ===Sieben vs Sieben- Rd 1=== To start the debate he baits an opponent with a seemingly fair resolution: "The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion" Then he whines when I offer a case for the reasonableness of conversion, "What I'm looking for is – Even if you believe god exists, what leads you to a CHRISTIAN god?" Voters should take note that in his first rebuttal, he *helpfully* redefines what it is he wants the Pro to present, successfully leaving the Pro with less ground than I started with. Good stuff. I never anticipated him changing what little resolution there was to begin with, d'oh! ===Tragedy of Observational Debate=== So here we have to sink yet another would-have-been-interesting debate to the depths of resolution analysis. Here we go... 1) If CON requests the PRO to convert him to any theistic religion of his choice, CON does not retain the right to pit other religions not selected against the PRO. The debate would be incredibly unbalanced. In PRO world, I get the chance to reasonably argue for choosing a particular theism over against a non-theism. In CON world, he gets to use all the other cards in the deck. "Why not choose Hinduism? Why not choose Islam? etc etc ad naseum." My opponent should debate the merits of Christianity, HE OFFERED to enter the subject of the PRO's choosing. He has bailed on this and so forfeits the round. 2) CON comes right out and says there is no way he will face the resolution one philosophy weighed over against the other (Atheism v Christianity). Con begins by saying: "The whole point of the OP was that I don't have any reason to accept Christianity over any other religion, so this "comparative" argument remains open." Really? The point of "convert me to any theistic religion, your choice" was supposed to be an exercise in comparative religion? Imagine if I opened with a quote about how silly anybody who doesn't drive a Chevy is and challenged anybody to convert me to another make, then when somebody offered the benefits of Ford compared with Chevy, I cackled as I reminded him that "Hondas, Hyundais and Toyotas are comparable to Ford anyway, so who's to say which of those is best, I may as well stick with Chevy." *CON needed to debate Christianity v Atheism straight up, otherwise he should have clarified that what he wanted was a debate where one theistic religion must prove that it is over and above the others, the one true religion. A wholly different debate.* ===Arguments from Con worth dropping=== A) He denies the choice between Atheism and Christianity, making the debate "Pro and Jesus vs Con and Everybody Else". Bait and switch from the original post. Regardless I felt relief when I read this: "So even if he thinks that this debate is restricted to Christianity vs Atheism, there are infinitely many atheist worlds too." It appeared we were going to have the actual debate now. He was going to present the possible worlds of Atheism to counterbalance my wager and engage the content. Instead, he immediately ran back to his theistic costume shop and picked out a few to try on..."We should also include non-religious, theistic worlds". Then he happily listed his one Atheist option, and then followed with 6 theistic options, being sure to remind us that there are an infinity of others (exactly why Theism should be restricted to my side of the debate). He concludes with "Pascal's wager fails on utilitarian grounds because the probability of any ONE world happening is infinitesimally small". Of course it is, its a wager. It decides between two competing alternatives. The argument was made in good faith that we both were getting a full hand to play cards with. He gave me one card and kept the rest. B) "why did you choose Christianity in the first place?" I chose it because I thought it was "Atheism vs Theism of choice". Not "the infinity of possibilities vs the one philosophy I left on the table for you". This assumption was not made ignorantly, his wording was disingenuous, and knowing how I understood his OP (see the opening of my case in R1) he simply said "nope I make the rules" and blatantly side stepped my entire engagement with his infinity theory. D) I don't mind this argument fading away, I only included it to pre-empt the Dawkins rebuttal, since he didn't go that route that argument is irrelevant anyway. I never asserted Atheists can't have a fulfilling life anyway. Con case) Just more jibberish where he elatedly basks in the infinitude of his options not realizing he has made a mockery of what could have been a serious discussion. ===Arguments from Con worth keeping=== *C)* Now this was a legitimate argument. And since it is the only actual argument he made that engages my case without ducking off into the bushes and taking a short cut, this small and nuanced area must become the proving ground for the rest of the debate (thus the asterisks around it above). Judges I urge you to limit your voting entirely to this argument, and which of us best captures it. CON, I urge you to swallow your pride, drop the other "infinity vs 1" stuff and take me on squarely on this point. I won't bring that stuff up again either. 1) He argues that people may not want to maximize happiness, that "After all, people willingly engage in risky behavior all the time even when their expected gain is negative." Good argument actually. Even gamblers act outside of reason occasionally, trusting their gut, or a hunch. It would be ironic if this "leap of faith" sort of instinct defended the Atheistic side of Pascal's Wager. But their expectation is still winning, it's hard to imagine a nihilistic gambler intent on betting everything on a likely loss for no other reason than he likes the sound the chips make when the other players are taking them away. I would assert that taking a risk is neither reasonable nor desirable when one is aware of the odds, especially in this case where the worst case scenario is conscious torment for all of eternity (mega bummer). 2) He continues, "If I believe in Christianity, I'll never be able to participate in a 10 man orgy. How much is that worth to me? Maybe a lot. There's a 50% chance of hell, but I have it within my power to guarantee 100% that I will live a life of libertine hedonism." Forgoing his misunderstanding that orgies don't occur in Christianity (yay for crazies http://swiftreport.blogs.com...) and his misunderstanding that even if he did have a 10 man orgy that would disqualify him from Christianity (Lk 6:37), this argument is still defeated by the weighing mechanism of the round: reasonableness. Pro argues that Christianity is more reasonable to the gambler because it maximizes benefits and minimizes harms. Con's argument here don't negate that reasonableness, he merely contends that he may not want to act reasonably. That's fine, he can follow his lust if he wishes, but I'm not sure he wants to. If he is willing to concede that Pascal's Wager leaves him only emotional ground to stand on, and that Reason would lead him to conversion, I'm willing to accept that, because it will cost him the round. The only weighing mechanism was reasonableness.