Mr. Mustard: At this point I'm going to change the format. Rather than both of us reading a part and commenting on it, we'll both read the whole thing and then comment.
Mr. Ketchup: That was tedious.
Mr. Mustard. Yeah. Anyway, TO THE FORUM!

. . .

Mr. Mustard: This is going about how I expected now. She basically agreed with him on the scientific method.
Mr. Ketchup: She seemed to be advocating irrationality as a means toward science.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, I didn't expect that part. The way she put it makes sense, but having imagination doesn't make you a theist. I think she shot herself in the foot with the last paragraph of the first section - she's advocating a rationally-irrational view of reality.
Mr. Ketchup: What about the second section?
Mr. Mustard: I thought it was an odd paragraph to focus on. I half expected her to waive that one off.
Mr. Ketchup: She almost gave a textbook response there. Science IS the authority on reality at the moment.
Mr. Mustard: If he would have cited cthulhu, that would have been an appeal to authority. Or Stephen Hawking. But the scientific community, of anyone, would probably know whether there is a god.
Mr. Ketchup: She seems to have lost sight of her point in the second section.
Mr. Mustard: She comes back to it in the second paragraph, saying what I was talking about earlier with a priori arguments and the necessity of support for them. The last paragraph fits my expectation.
Mr. Ketchup: Yeah, that was eerie.
Mr. Mustard: Not really. I knew she agreed, more or less.
Mr. Ketchup: I wonder why Kevin even threw that moderate part in there.
Mr. Mustard: No idea. I was just thinking that if this becomes a habit we should record it and podcast it rather than doing it in a chatroom.
Mr. Ketchup: Why's that?
Mr. Mustard: Because I have to format it all nice and stuff before I put it up in the peanut gallery. Change your name, fix spelling and grammar, and all that.
Mr. Ketchup: I was wondering why everything looked so nice.
Mr. Mustard: Now you know.

I'm going to track this thread just for Mr.Mustard's and Mr.Ketchup's awesome commentary.I feel so much more informed now.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14402

I think the one-on-one debate forum is an awesome concept.  This particular debate, however, doesn't hold meuch interest for me personally.

Mr. Ketchup: We now have Eloise's second rebuttal.
Mr. Mustard: In a surprising turn of events, Eloise conceeded in the first section that her original phrasing led to an unacceptable conclusion.
Mr. Ketchup: In a way she seems to be drawing Kevin's attention back to the topic at hand.
Mr. Mustard: Indeed. Eloise did not propose the type of god that Kevin drew his example from, and mentioning it could be considered a red herring in some countries.
Mr. Ketchup: Really?
Mr. Mustard: No. At best it's an aside.
Mr. Ketchup: In the second section Eloise acknowledged that her initial statements may not have been entirely clear to the lay reader.
Mr. Mustard: Her clarification seems to fit right into my original idea of what she was talking about.
Mr. Ketchup: Yes. However this also means that the subject is a little less god-like.
Mr. Mustard: We are certainly not hearing anything about your standard, run of the mill god here Mr. K.
Mr. Ketchup: Definitely not. So far Eloise's rebuttal is making Kevin look like the guy who denies everything and argues the time of day.
Mr. Mustard: If Kevin can't figure out what Eloise is talking about soon it'll be a sad first trimester for all involved.
Mr. Ketchup: It's been said that in debates where neither side agrees on anything nothing gets done. Here was have what seems to be a poorly researched opponent who ends up getting nothing but concessions because he has no clue where the other side stands.
Mr. Mustard: Take a look at this third section. Eloise admits humanism in the face of Kevin's implied consequences.
Mr. Ketchup: Kevin's going to have a hard time working around that sand trap Mr. M.
Mr. Mustard: Rightly so. Kevin's 1 and a half posts behind now, and there's a whole maze of crocodiles to get to the next rebuttal.
Mr. Ketchup: Finally, Eloise takes a shot at Kevin in the fourth section.
Mr. Mustard: If the judges are deciding who has the better argumentation, Eloise must be in the lead.
Mr. Ketchup: I'm not so sure. Eloise's opening statement wasn't very well organized. It wasn't clearly structured, and the parts used in that summary should have been the set up for each section.
Mr. Mustard: They were very well phrased. I think it would definitely have helped if they were used as lead ins to subtitled sections.
Mr. Ketchup: In my opinion, the fourth section wasn't very well structured either.
Mr. Mustard: Regardless of the typos, any move in this forum must be calculated and well thought out.
Mr. Ketchup: More so in One On One than elsewhere, because of the semi-formalness of the area.
Mr. Mustard: In the fifth section Eloise apologises for not citing her sources.
Mr. Ketchup: But as both you and her said the citations weren't particularly necessary.
Mr. Mustard: No. The only thing that is controversial here is the interpretation of that knowledge, and hence the debate. Eloise catches on in the sixth section and immediately hit Kevin with a right hook.
Mr. Ketchup: It seems like Kevin might have fallen into a rubber stick trap. The set up, use words which look like good footholds to move up on. The punchline, whack 'em with the rubber stick when they try to climb up.
Mr. Mustard: Maybe you should leave the metaphors to me. Here the deny everything strategy falls on its face. Obviously, if Kevin actually knew what she was talking about he wouldn't have run into this problem.
Mr. Ketchup: Section seven, Eloise still beating on Kevin with that rubber stick.
Mr. Mustard: While Kevin underlined the sentence that indicated to him that the paragraph was speculative, he failed to mention what about it was speculative. If he meant guessing about the nature of full integer spin is the problem, it's not a great leap to say that it is unlikely that the nature of integer spin is "the understanding we have now is utterly wrong."
Mr. Ketchup: Either way, as she points out, it doesn't matter.
Mr. Mustard: Section eight isn't really worth mentioning.
Mr. Ketchup: Not much happening there.

Mr. Ketchup:  I couldn't make out what she was talking about in section nine.
Mr. Mustard: If she was talking about neurotransmission, she used the wrong terminology for that particular instance. There are electrical and chemical synapses, and describing either one in terms of spin statistics is either fool hearty or grossly misleading depending on which she means. That is, unless she meant integers as in both half integers and whole integers. It reads like she means bosons.
Mr. Ketchup: What does that mean?
Mr. Mustard: This will all end in tears. In the closing paragraphs, Eloise reiterates her argument.
Mr. Ketchup: I'm not sure a given neural pattern can be called an entity unto itself.
Mr. Mustard: Even if it is, an individual neural pattern bears little difference from the operating state of a logic circuit. This is a very loose ontology, if you could call it that. This also rings slightly of quantum mysticism.
Mr. Ketchup: Indeed it does. I remember they mentioned something about QM and neurology in "What the bleep."
Mr. Mustard: Yes. The problem is, though, that the kind of situations that would in theory allow things to work as she mentioned when referring to the Omega Point Theory don't happen under field circumstances. To my knowledge, they only occur among isolated particles where no neighbors have a chance to observe each other before the transaction can occur.
Mr. Ketchup: So you're saying that it's possible for other universes to communicate with this one?
Mr. Mustard: Interact, yes. But as David Deutsch has mentioned, a universe has to be very similar to our own along the evolutionary tree in order to do so.
Mr. Ketchup: Ah. So a world in which everyone is omniscient would be too different to contribute anything.
Mr. Mustard: Yes. It's a matter of particles in different universes being in exactly the same place at the same time and "deciding" to take different courses. The useful thing is, there's no decision to be made as the particle takes both courses. If you eliminate the possibility of one course, then only the universes in which that course is eliminated does the particle continue on unimpinged.
Mr. Ketchup: I think I'm getting a better sense of what Eloise really means.
Mr. Mustard: Me too. This concludes the first part of the first One On One debate. We'll now go to the judges and see what they think.

the debate is over already? ::sobs::

i like this format.  who's next?

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

Seriously though, I often wish I had the extra, apparently free time that Inspector has to weigh in with his two cents, errrr, I mean, condies.

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

 I'm looking for the beer and brauts myself.  Anyone else getting hungry here?

Beer is good by me, too !

Bah, it's nothin'. It only takes me about about 30 minutes all together to catch up on everything. Those actually went really quickly compared to what I'm usually writing or working on. I'll write a bit, then do some work until something else comes to mind, and repeat until I'm satisfied.