I’m putting the challenge out there, for Xunzian, Felix, or anybody else, to debate whether or not religion is inert when it comes to the violence we see happening in our current day, most specifically in the Middle East.
I think religion is a facade used to unite the masses over the real issues like limited resources and unlimited need for resources. War, and violence, I think are mostly economic matters. People just aren’t morally comfortable killing each other for surplusses of wealth.
I think when the picture is painted with such a broad stroke, as you have done smears, essential pieces of the puzzle are ignored.
I’m down. How are we going to word the challenge?
You arguing that religion is causative with respect to the violence often attributed to it (Crusades, 9/11, and so on)? Or would you rather argue a specific case, like “Islam plays a causal role for the violence in the ME?” With me arguing the opposite in either case?
Hrmm…I’ll have to think about it over the weekend…I’m still in the process of being influenced by Felix and you in the other thread. 
Xunz,
I know you’re busy with the ILP vs. ILO debate, so let’s wait until that’s finished.
The position I’m taking is that religious belief plays an integral role in the violence in the Middle East. In other words, it’s not “inert.” What do you think? I’m open to suggestions. 
That sounds sensible. (Translation: thanks, I was about to write a PM begging and pleading on my knees for the same). Insofar as the debate topic is concerned, that works fine for me since I believe that if someone were to wave a magic wand and make all religions disappear, the conflict in the ME would be ongoing.
A hypothetical in my case, of course, so I don’t deny the religious rhetoric that currently permeates the discussion. I just don’t think it is actually meaningful.
And the ILO/ILP debate needn’t be entirely finished. Let’s just wait until the first one, or so, is in proper swing. Unlike the ILO/ILP debate, I’ve already got a fair deal up my sleeve.
To the contrary, it is in the Middle East where we find the most vivid representations of what religion, specifically monotheistic religion, is all about. Religion is inert in some parts of Europe.
That is not what I wanted to hear. 
If you need a judge… I’ll be reading this debate carefully anyway… so…
I’m cool with MMP as a judge. I trust his integrity, despite his known bias. But given his biased stance, I’d recommend countering it with Felix, if he’d be willing. Then a third, neutral judge.
I think both MMP and Felix recognize a good argument when they see one, despite having preferences.
As long as the judges have paypal…
Maybe Rebel Epsilon as the third judge (assuming he is willing)? He has shown himself to be open to ideas and plastic about his beliefs. I think those are ideal qualities in a judge.
I’ll do my best to be as objective as possible… but FYI I’m not sure I’m all that biased to begin with, Xun… at least not against the line of argument you’d be putting forward.
Looks like there is a snag in the debate, so I’d be fine with getting this one started soon. We need a third judge, a first poster, and a starting time. Any suggestions for who #3 should be? Given his handle, sittlichkeit could be interesting.
For the structure I was thinking:
1: 2 Opening statements – the second poster may not reference the other poster’s opening in their’s.
2: Rebuttals – Opening statements are discussed, but the second poster can’t reference the other poster’s rebuttals.
3: Conclusions – Closing statements and answers to rebuttals.
Sound good? How do you want to determine who goes first? I’m fine with taking point.
Ready when you are brosef.
Uhhh, how about this tuesday?
But we still need the rules and the third judge.
Works for me, and I’d prefer to have maybe 2-3 days allowed for a response, because I work full time during the day and part time 4/5 worknights a week.
Given that we are both busy people, is ~2 days enough? No penalty for overtime in case something comes up, but as a rough framework. I’ll PM Stitt
I can judge!
Haha, now it’s on you to turn me down in a sensitively courteous way.