Wollstonia;448671 wrote:I'm new here so forgive me if I blunder about.
First of all I'm never sure about debates that are organised in order to be won. Winning implies there must be a loser. I would have thought far better to discuss something in a way which moves knowledge along to the benefit of all rather than destroy a point of view.
Secondly taking the opposite point of view to that which you believe could mean that your actual belief is underpinned by a set of clever tricks and devices and would have no substance, which sort of destroys the principle of debate.
Normally, debates on SC are not of the formal variety, and even in this case, I doubt there will be a winner or loser declared as such. Exclusive Engagements are sort of a specialized form, and if you look through this subforum, you can see we've only had a handful or two in the history of SC, and even fewer that actually made it through to the final round. Usually, discussion threads are a free-for-all, and participants are winners only in their own minds. Even in this case, it's certainly meant for fun and enlightenment, not deciding the fate of anyone's soul.
As for the conceit of playing the devil's advocate, consider it an intellectual exercise of sorts, like yoga for one's belief structures. I don't think it impacts on the integrity of either of our actual positions.[/QUOTE]
Ha! Says you. By the end of our debate I confidently expect you will be converted to a universalist Christian position from your Godless misery.