CHALLENGE THREAD -- Issue a challenge here

[elfdude]

Total relism has elected to avoid the debate of creationism vs evolution. He proposes to debate a small fraction of evolution rather than evolution itself instead. Since that is not the challenge the challenge of creationism vs evolution is still open for any willing takers.

[total relism]

read post 100

[elfdude]

You stated verbatim that I had to limit the points I made to a single post or OP. When I told you no, and told you a real debate doesn't limit information you persisted several times until I mentioned that debate was only limited by time to be had. Since this is online and there is no true limit on time there is no limit on this debate. However that does not mean this debate cannot be had. I am not going to create an arbitrary number of points or limit myself to a single post of points. It's quite obvious from the transcript I've posted as well as your expanded transcript you posted that you're backing out of the debate:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post12786669

Like I said, if you still wish to have this debate the rules are as stated. The topic will be evolution versus creationism. There are no limits to the amount of information for this on either side. If this is unacceptable to you then you're either lazy or ignorant. Attempting to debate a single OP would be limiting the evolution debate to a single facet (the facet I have described) of evolution. Like I've said in my thread that is by no means an exhaustive explanation of the theory of evolution. All it serves as is a basic guide for the lay person.

Again, the ball is in your court, either post a debate with the agreed upon rules or don't. Your protesting that you have been refused a challenge or that I refused to debate you is simply false. I have maintained the same stance throughout all of our PM's and the transcript even the one you posted proves that.

Otherwise, the challenge of evolution versus creationism is still open for anyone as total relism has refused to debate me.

[total relism]

i will simply refer you to post 98 with missing pm's you did not post and post 100. I will let viewers decide who backed out of debate. My debate offers 3-4 of them i gave you still stand if your ever willing. You do know that more info can be used when responding to op, no limit their. I think i made it clear in pm's and post 100 you dont want debate but elephant hurl and avoid deep discussion of topic.

[elfdude]

Yeah it's clear from the fact that you edited the PM that you're lying.

Spoiler for unedited transcript of his post: 

you have indeed avoided debating me creation vs evolution a few years back. I tried and you declined.


you say
" Now you're pulling a delay tactic for no apparent reason other than a hypothetical claim you're engaged in other debates. I would suggest you do not make a challenge or accept a challenge if you are not available to actually act on it"


i am 100% wanting to act on it, usually when i set up 1v1 their is a week or two to time to set rules etc.

you claim im in no other debate like i am somehow scared of your post,or that you bring something new that has never been seen before, i enjoy the confidence, but that does not equal truth. For debated i am curentley on.
responding to common objections to bible

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...tions-to-bible
Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...vironmentalism
Jordan vs Bird who was better?
https://www.2ksports.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24


you will see i post regularly on all these at same time, i also started these first so they have priority, when i asked to debate you its because i want to, that does not mean stop life and do it know forget all other posts.



your second paragraphs should make you want to debate me,that means it should be easy and you can call me out on it. If you try to get out of this your name will remain on the refused to accept my debate offer in fight club.


that is my whole point, we could both do pages and pages of stuff,than it really turns into who can type more and who has more time at hand. That is why i suggest we limit the topic to main areas to discuss every debate i have been in the op is the shortest, the responses get longer and longer and bring in new stuff, that is why i suggest smaller specific op's with no new stuff after op, only responses to op.


i like this very much
" I am a med student, a professional debator and a politician, all I can say is good luck."

this does get me excited, i love overconfidence and, perhaps maybe someone who can respond to me?.you have indeed avoided debating me creation vs evolution a few years back. I tried and you declined.


you say
" Now you're pulling a delay tactic for no apparent reason other than a hypothetical claim you're engaged in other debates. I would suggest you do not make a challenge or accept a challenge if you are not available to actually act on it"


i am 100% wanting to act on it, usually when i set up 1v1 their is a week or two to time to set rules etc.

you claim im in no other debate like i am somehow scared of your post,or that you bring something new that has never been seen before, i enjoy the confidence, but that does not equal truth. For debated i am curentley on.
responding to common objections to bible

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...tions-to-bible
Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...vironmentalism
Jordan vs Bird who was better?
https://www.2ksports.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24


you will see i post regularly on all these at same time, i also started these first so they have priority, when i asked to debate you its because i want to, that does not mean stop life and do it know forget all other posts.



your second paragraphs should make you want to debate me,that means it should be easy and you can call me out on it. If you try to get out of this your name will remain on the refused to accept my debate offer in fight club.


that is my whole point, we could both do pages and pages of stuff,than it really turns into who can type more and who has more time at hand. That is why i suggest we limit the topic to main areas to discuss every debate i have been in the op is the shortest, the responses get longer and longer and bring in new stuff, that is why i suggest smaller specific op's with no new stuff after op, only responses to op.


i like this very much
" I am a med student, a professional debator and a politician, all I can say is good luck."

this does get me excited, i love overconfidence and, perhaps maybe someone who can respond to me?.

This is further explained in: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post12787919

If you're not backing out of the evolution debate, make your post.

[Aquila Praefortis]

Gentlemen! Shall I request a moderator move or delete this material*? It is not in any way a challenge issued. I want to see this debate. Elfdude, if you want to post a lot, why not appease total relism by having it come in a series of posts? Like this:

Elfdude: long post . . . good point concerning evolution.

total relism: long post . . .counter.

Elfdude: long post . . . counter + another good point or two concerning evolution

Etc.

That way there can be a lot of stuff you talk about (“stuff” is a very scientific word!) throughout the thread while having a relatively long (but by no means your Guide to Evolution long, which I haven’t even come close to finish) but manageable post? Or maybe you could have a maximum of 5 points per post, as well as countering the previous five points made by the opponent, or something similar to that. There are more options than you guys literally telling the world that the other debater is pretty much too chicken to debate you.

Apparently, severe compromise is necessary for this debate to happen, and I am willing to have to be a part of that compromise and unwilling to see this debate pass.

* Although it is very likely it will happen whether I request it or not.

[total relism]

Gentlemen! Shall I request a moderator move or delete this material*? It is not in any way a challenge issued. I want to see this debate. Elfdude, if you want to post a lot, why not appease total relism by having it come in a series of posts? Like this:

Elfdude: long post . . . good point concerning evolution.

total relism: long post . . .counter.

Elfdude: long post . . . counter + another good point or two concerning evolution

Etc.

That way there can be a lot of stuff you talk about (“stuff” is a very scientific word!) throughout the thread while having a relatively long (but by no means your Guide to Evolution long, which I haven’t even come close to finish) but manageable post? Or maybe you could have a maximum of 5 points per post, as well as countering the previous five points made by the opponent, or something similar to that. There are more options than you guys literally telling the world that the other debater is pretty much too chicken to debate you.

Apparently, severe compromise is necessary for this debate to happen, and I am willing to have to be a part of that compromise and unwilling to see this debate pass.

* Although it is very likely it will happen whether I request it or not.

I cant agree more, he will not find anyone to debate under what he asked for. me meanwhile have had debates on topic with multiple people as i have reasonable requests. Not one person has asked demanded what he does,in the end i dont think he wants to debate,but elephant hurl and see who has more time and can type alot. I have never backed out of a debate, i must decline from what elf want to engage in for the many reasons i posted before. Elf thinks he needs 100 point to show evolution true. I have offered him to do his best 10 and refused. If i can refute his best 10, why have confidence in the other 90? and if i cant refute his best 10, than the other 90 dont really matter.


as far as edited pm's elf clearly did so on his original post of them, i honestly tried to fix 100%, i am not sure if i made mistake but i did put all the pms here when posted, while elf did not.

[elfdude]

Please provide a screenshot of the pm's that I edited. I'm sure you can do that right?

[Aquila Praefortis]

Topic: I am willing to debate about the Bible's validity.

Details: This is a little open-ended, true, it can be biblical contradictions and errors, historical accuracy of various sections (ie the Resurrection) of the Bible, Jesus, whether or not the Bible is out-dated, etc. I'll leave it up to you on the topic, it can be one or several. I am not that willing to discuss creation vs. evolution, but I will if I must. This offer is always standing unless I am already debating someone else about it, then you'll have to wait your turn.

My Position: The Bible is factual in and of its original manuscipts.

[elfdude]

I'd be happy to take you up on that debate. So we can hammer out the details, which version of the bible are you supporting?

I would like to use this set of rules unless you have an issue with them:

The rules are simple:
1. One post responses, you cannot make a new post until your previous post has been responded to. No double posting for any reason beyond forum glitches which moderators will remove.
2. Every point in the post must be responded to directly, avoiding points will be taken defacto conceding the point.
3. In order to respond to the point the point being responded to must be quoted and the response must follow
4. All writing and work that is not your own must be cited and quoted appropriately, plagiarism is defacto conceding the point.
5. First tier sources always trump secondary and tertiary sources, primary resources are resources which perform a study themselves, secondary resources supply an analysis of said study and tertiary sources are analysis of analysis. Sources are anything that is not provided through your own logic and train of thought. Contradiction between the same level of sources can only be resolved with in depth review of the sources themselves.
6. Claims of fallacies must be explained including (not only a link but an explanation in your own words of why the logic is fallacious) a source explaining why they are indeed fallacies that is independent of the plaintiff. Off topic or irrelevant points are dismissed.
7. Links to alternative websites, tiertiary sources and etc. are not a point. All points must be explained in your own words. If they are not they are conceded.
8. Points cannot be reused, referring to your own posts at a future point in the debate is a nonpoint. If previous information is relevant to a new point brought up by the opponent the information must be re-explained appropriately dealing with the new context.
9. Concepts you use must be defined, if a definition is requested you must define that in addition. Undefined or ambiguous concepts are not a point.
10. If you cannot explain a study or understand the study yourself you cannot use it, expect to explain every source you use in your own words. If you cannot you defacto concede the point.
11. Other than that these rules must be posted in the opening post.
12. You have one opportunity to fix violations of the rules by altering your point so that is within the ruleset. If you repeatedly violate rules you concede the debate.
13. All posts must be formatted regularly, bold, italic and underlined fonts are allowable, no size changes, color changes. Unclear formatting will result in a non point until you fix it, if you don't you concede the point. The burden is on the poster to ensure their post is readable.

I don't know if you're one of the people who needs this but just in case: Breaking up a post into quoting seems difficult for some people. To do so you merely hit the reply with quote button and copy the reply or click go advanced, (press ctrl c to copy highlighted text and ctrl v to paste) then you need to use [.quote] and [./quote] commands (without the period) if you want to be fancy you can do quote=elfdude;post# in brackets of course but I know which things I've said, it merely helps keep track of why you're saying what you're saying.

[Ysmar]

Topic: Universal Healthcare?

Details: Should healthcare be controlled by the state, funded by taxes and made freely available to all?

My position: Healthcare should not be tax funded and/or state controlled.

I will debate anyone on this.