I eagerly clicked that link…only to find that it’s the same tired list of arguments you’ve been giving for ages. Not one of them is evidence for the existence of any gods.
Now you done it. You want to issue such a challenge are you brave enough to meet it? Or will you make excuses and chicken out?
Doxa Forums the one on one board awaits!
If you accept I'll put up my arguments we can have a nice little debate. That's a good venue to demonstrate the evidence I was talking about anyway.
9 comments:
He was carping about no proof for God as they always do (totally oblivious to the fact that the moral argument we was whining about is a proof of god--at least in the warrant sense). I put up my list of God arguments...
Now you done it. You want to issue such a challenge are you brave enough to meet it? Or will you make excuses and chicken out?
You just can't help yourself, can you? Even when challenging me to a debate, you have to insult me.
But regardless, I'll happily take your "challenge". Exactly what will we be debating? I'm guessing it will involve your arguments for God's existence, but on what basis? All of them at once? Will you pick one or two? Or will we be arguing for/against a certain proposition, with your arguments as evidence?
In any case, I will create an account there and await your pleasure.
He was carping about no proof for God as they always do (totally oblivious to the fact that the moral argument we was whining about is a proof of god--at least in the warrant sense). I put up my list of God arguments...
Now you done it. You want to issue such a challenge are you brave enough to meet it? Or will you make excuses and chicken out?
You just can't help yourself, can you? Even when challenging me to a debate, you have to insult me.
But regardless, I'll happily take your "challenge". Exactly what will we be debating? I'm guessing it will involve your arguments for God's existence, but on what basis? All of them at once? Will you pick one or two? Or will we be arguing for/against a certain proposition, with your arguments as evidence?
In any case, I will register an account there and await your pleasure. And I really hope I won't have to point out your ad hominem and insult too often.
why do you think asking if brave enough is an insult? I can see how it's not friendly it's hardly an insult. Lot's of people have agreed to debate then don't show up.
Anyway I don't mean to insult you. You have every right to say the things you have said. I would like as you to stop pouring on the comments you know? It's getting to the point where it's flaming.
I have other things to do, especially around Christmas.
In 1x1 debate I don't insult people, especially not on my boards. I promise to be polite.
My plan if you agree you agree is to choose four arguments. one per thread so we have four threads. A God argument needs focus so one argument per thread.
If you find that's too many we could just do two.
Resolution: Resolved: that belief in God is rationally warranted.
the debate format I prefer is based upon National Forensic league/NDT debate style. Adapted for message boards of course.
I am Affirmative so I go first and speak last. You are negative so get a block of two speeches in a row at one point. speech order is like this.
1 Affirmative Constructive
1 Negative constructive
2 AC
2NC
1Nc (there's two in a row)
1A rebuttal
1N rebuttal
2NR
2AR
The disfference in constructive and rebuttals:
(1) constructive allow for new arguments to be raised, but no new arguments in rebuttals.
(2) 8000 words in constructive; 4000 words in rebuttal
agree?
the debate format I prefer is based upon National Forensic league/NDT debate style. Adapted for message boards of course.
I am Affirmative so I go first and speak last. You are negative so get a block of two speeches in a row at one point. speech order is like this.
1 Affirmative Constructive
1 Negative constructive
2 AC
2NC
1Nc (there's two in a row)
1A rebuttal
1N rebuttal
2NR
2AR
The disfference in constructive and rebuttals:
(1) constructive allow for new arguments to be raised, but no new arguments in rebuttals.
(2) 8000 words in constructive; 4000 words in rebuttal
agree?
I'm sorry, but no, I don't. I find the above far too restrictive. Why all the rules? You post, I post. And so forth. That's all the rules we need.
And I'm not keen on the topic, either. I thought we were debating either morality or your 42 proofs of god? I think debating whether belief is "rationally warranted" is pretty much useless. What does it really mean? That the preponderance of evidence is for it? "Rationally warranted" is far too subjective.
I knew you would chicken out.
you saw the arguments hu? so now you are trying to find an excuse. atheists have done this to me over and over again. They come mad as little wet hens they are tech me a lesson then they see I know what I'm doing they make a bunch of ridiculous objections they know I wont accept so they don't have to do it.
you can't debate 42 arguments at one time that's stupid. then none of them get developed.
you can't just say "you post than I post." that eliminates the controls. the more rule you have the more thing you can do. like with chess. think about plashing chess with no colors and no squares and no restrictions. Chess with "you move then I move." It wouldn't be a context of brains it would be chaos.
that's what you want becuase you figure in a contest of brains I wil skin you alive. in a contest of flaming you figure you put up the most crap and I'll boards and stop.
you are not willing to let the arguments be developed in a way that the reader can who is right. becasue you know you will get your ass kicked.
I've seen atheist do this before, suddenly realize you can't sin so you have make a bunch of stupid demands so the contest never happens.
refusing the rational warrant thing is really stupid. That shows you are either trying to throw it so you want face me in a real contest, or you just don't have the slightest idea what ideas are about.
what it really boils down to is you are a coward.
...and here we go, the usual insults and attacks. Let's count them...nah, forget it, I lost count. I disagree with some of his debate conditions, so I'm immediately a coward, trying to run away from Meta's awesomeness.
Let's get it straight. I'm not trying to run away from anything; I haven't seen your arguments (except that I've no doubt you won't come up with anything new, and I've seen your arguments before); I didn't make any "ridiculous objections"; I don't "figure in a contest of brains [you] wil skin you alive"; I don't figure anything about a contest of flaming because I know that the only person doing any flaming would be you, just like in your post above; I am quite willing to let the arguments be developed in a way that the reader can who is right; I do not know that I will get my ass kicked; I am neither trying to "throw it" nor do I not "have the slightest idea what ideas are about"; I am quite happy to face you in a real contest; I am not a coward.
Now, having said all that, do you want to actually discuss and agree on rules for our debate, or do you want to throw another childish hissy fit and attack and insult me for having the audacity to not like your proposed debate format?
Honestly, Meta...you act like you just have and then you wonder why people don't want to debate you? I'm trying as best I can to ignore your repeated insults and attacks and have an actual discussion, but you sure make it hard.
...and here we go, the usual insults and attacks. Let's count them...nah, forget it, I lost count. I disagree with some of his debate conditions, so I'm immediately a coward, trying to run away from Meta's awesomeness.
I only insulted you one time. you insulted me by rejecting the challenge.
Let's get it straight. I'm not trying to run away from anything; I haven't seen your arguments (except that I've no doubt you won't come up with anything new, and I've seen your arguments before); I didn't make any "ridiculous objections"; I don't "figure in a contest of brains [you] wil skin you alive"; I don't figure anything about a contest of flaming because I know that the only person doing any flaming would be you, just like in your post above; I am quite willing to let the arguments be developed in a way that the reader can who is right; I do not know that I will get my ass kicked; I am neither trying to "throw it" nor do I not "have the slightest idea what ideas are about"; I am quite happy to face you in a real contest; I am not a coward.
you can't have a real debate on the basis of "you post then I post." that's just a flame war. to have a real debate you have to have structure. That's what makes it contest of arguments rather than who posts the most.
Now, having said all that, do you want to actually discuss and agree on rules for our debate, or do you want to throw another childish hissy fit and attack and insult me for having the audacity to not like your proposed debate format?
the childish thing is saying stuff "rational warrant is not good" and rejecting rules and wanting an open flame war. That's chilidish.
Honestly, Meta...you act like you just have and then you wonder why people don't want to debate you? I'm trying as best I can to ignore your repeated insults and attacks and have an actual discussion, but you sure make it hard.
stop your little old lady hysterics. You are trying to trade upon mocking and ridicule. you have dodged every argument I've made.
yuo dogdege the whole process of having a debate. I dont' think you have any probelm with the format that I talked about it's a ploy. if so what format do you want?
stop wasting our time with histionics and just spit it out.
Post a Comment