CHALLENGE THREAD -- Issue a challenge here

[Armatus]

The God debate is so old. He's not coming back it's been 2000 years...

[Helel]

The God debate is so old. He's not coming back it's been 2000 years...

hah what r u talking about!>? your biased is getting in the way.....i will debate 1 v. 1 right now but none of this referencing ********, and do'nt complain about "logic" or "fallacies" because that is stupid...i already found some sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[Elfdude]

this is most certainly not true at all,your bias and arbitrary bigotry allows you to assume this, no logical argument. In fact i would be willing to show in a 1v1 debate with you, science only makes sense of Christianity is true, and atheist are inconstant when they do science. Science is only possible because the world is created, if atheism were true, science would be impossible. Care to debate it:?





you have made a few logical errors above.

Care to debate on any of the topics you just mentioned? do creationist peer review? or age of earth, or who often display ignorance of basic scientific concepts, creationist or evolutionist?.

I'll debate you, rules are the same as my debate with aquila. Post go. I'm always eager to show off your spectacular intelligence and the more examples the better. Unless you want to back out of this one too. Can't really blame you for intellectual cowardice considering your sources though.

[pacifism]

this is most certainly not true at all,your bias and arbitrary bigotry allows you to assume this, no logical argument. In fact i would be willing to show in a 1v1 debate with you, science only makes sense of Christianity is true, and atheist are inconstant when they do science. Science is only possible because the world is created, if atheism were true, science would be impossible. Care to debate it:?

AWKWARD ALERT: I was being sarcastic. I was trying to interpret the real meaning of Helel's post. So . . .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sorry. I should have put [SARCASM] [/SARCASM] around the post!

[total relism]

Labeling me biased and a bigot doesn't make my post any less true.

I have seen your previous debates, so I will absolutely not debate you. Debating with you is akin to smashing one's head into a brick wall and hoping to make a dent. You are incapable of admitting error, changing your opinions when they become logically untenable, or of doing anything other than make massive, page long quote dumps.

If I have already made it perfectly clear that I take issue with your sources, why would I debate you?

this thread is for debate offers, you seemed to make one above, i tried to accept. Whatever reason you wish to use for an excuse to not debate [ a logical fallacy and faulty assumptions] is ok with me. The rest of your claims are just that and i would have to show in debate why your false, but given you wont and this is wrong thread to do so, it is pointless. Please only post here if offering a debate.

[total relism]

AWKWARD ALERT: I was being sarcastic. I was trying to interpret the real meaning of Helel's post. So . . .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sorry. I should have put [SARCASM] [/SARCASM] around the post!

sorry my bad.

I'll debate you, rules are the same as my debate with aquila. Post go. I'm always eager to show off your spectacular intelligence and the more examples the better. Unless you want to back out of this one too. Can't really blame you for intellectual cowardice considering your sources though.

accepted,rules are simple, we discuss topic's only, no new info added to make case after op [no endless elephant hurling, a logical fallacy] and no more than 3 points to make each case given possible four topics and length of replies,unless take away from one to add to another. What topics or all do you wish?. I am ok with all four. I like that you are still in belif that i backed out of a debate with you on creation vs evolution,as i sated last post its their for all to see who backed out.

[Elfdude]

accepted,rules are simple, we discuss topic's only, no new info added to make case after op [no endless elephant hurling, a logical fallacy] and no more than 3 points to make each case given possible four topics and length of replies,unless take away from one to add to another. What topics or all do you wish?. I am ok with all four.

Elephant hurling is not a logical fallacy.

As per the rules, I already outlined them, your rules are inadequate, the rules I used with aqualia are the rules I use with everyone, if you accept the challenge you accept the ruleset. If you don't you do don't.

I like that you are still in belif that i backed out of a debate with you on creation vs evolution,as i sated last post its their for all to see who backed out.

I suppose I can't blame you for providing proof of your own lies. I'll go ahead and do it for you just so you know it's explicitly public and can't pretend I altered the messages. We'll go step by step and show where you back out even:

Spoiler for spoiler tags because this is huuuuuge: 

Spoiler for picture: 

As we can see, my opening post, simple and straight forward.

Spoiler for response: 

Here's your response, as you can see you're immediately hesitating and delaying the debate. Newsflash it's a text debate, it's easy as hell to make an opening post. You could have made one point, but you did nothing. Let's pretend your delay is legitimate you're already requesting we limit the number of points we make. This is silly because it's well understood that your tactic is to use answers in genesis.com and other such nonsense websites. If I'm limited to examples which you thoroughly are convinced are you defeated by their explanations then we'll go no where. This is the point of a debate entirely, being able to out maneuver your opponent's defenses and since your defenses are limited to other people's work the only person it serves to benefit by limiting points is you. It's like saying, oh, sorry science is offtopic but we can discuss evolution. That's ridiculous.

Spoiler for my response: 

Of course my response is no surprise. My response to his complaint of number 8 is typical, it's common courtesy for either opponent to explain why they think something is relevant or what they feel is being ignored. Pointing out a simple post number is ineffective at this. If you have the post number you can quote the text that is concerned.

The next response is typical as well. It's actually a response designed to foil counterfeit arguments designed from putting together copy and pasted information from other places. This was explicitly outlined as a debate between elfdude and total relism not elfdude vs anything total relism can reference with no understanding. Even so there's numerous ways to foil this and still use plagiarized arguments. As such, since microsoft word allows the copy of text with no formatting information (Which total admits to using in a future post) should be no difficulty for total.

It's unsurprising i accuse you of avoiding the debate when you pester someone constantly about it for three years straight, only to delay, delay, and eventually back out of the debate all together. Again the debate is still open.

Spoiler for total responses: 

That's funny, he has three other debates going but he likes to focus on his debates 1v1? that seems contradictory. As for his complaint about the length I still think it's a meritless complaint. Debates are not limited by a certain number of topics, they are limited by the nature of the debate itself. If I say nukes, he says why not nukes, if I counter his why not, he counters my why not, and on and on, eventually each person ends up with several (usually) points he can't respond to or counter and several their opponent can't either. This then leads to the eventual winner of the debate. If the debate is limited to three points or other stupid rules such as that the natural result is that points are left unaddressed and unresponded to, or points are left unexplained. Of course then again, we could consider all of evolution a single point given the rather arbitrary definition of a point to total it seems.

Spoiler for my response: 

Yeah, I explain pretty much exactly what i mean in the message.

Spoiler for his response: 

More meritless objections and bluster. Yawn

Spoiler for my response: 

Unsurprising response.

Spoiler for his response: 

Was thinking awesome, he's going to debate this will be fun.

Spoiler for but wait there's more!: 

Isn't this just what I had told him no on?

Spoiler for my response: 

I thought I had.

Spoiler for him: 

That seems fine, though of course if he asks me to explain any part of it I might have to draw upon points outside of it, thus no limits.

Spoiler for me: 

Natural response of course, but then you follow:

Spoiler for you: 

What the heck? Where does this come from? Isn't debating and typing kind of the same thing when it comes to internet arguments?

Spoiler for his second response: 

Yawn. Of course I'm not backing out of the debate. Seems to me the posturing is now a ploy to avoid debating.

Spoiler for me: 

That's my last post. I pretty clear I'm still up for debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I forgot this gem too. In total it seems that total relism decided to run away out of laziness or intellectual intimidation. EItherway meh, too bad i saved the private messages, certainly makes it hard to alter them doesn't it total?

Anyways it's quite hilarious how much of a liar you are total but you should do it in a less recordable format.

[Sharpe]

Almost had a stroke reading some of TR's responses.

God damn what the hell.

[total relism]

for anyone interested, this has been discussed already and shown elf chose no reasonable debate rules [it is anti debate elephant hurt tactics,running from back and fourth a real debate] as i have debated with hundreds of people on many forums, not once has my rules or theirs [usually theirs] gone so anyone does not debate, only elf has this ever happened.


read post 98 and 100 for the edited version he posted. Than read 104-107.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nge-here/page5


if you dont want to read all that here is a quick show of who wants to debate, elf was unwilling to debate his signature thread on evolution found here on his sig http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-to-Evolution
he refused unless he could bring even more in, this does not include more of on topic back and fourth about his op, but more new arguments etc.



Elf i am sorry we cant make this happen, but i know one day we will, eventually i will be doing creation/evolution on main forum again and other biblical topic's, also morality and atheism,so eventually it will happen, to bad not in a 1v1,for know. I am going to go do debate on other forum on conquest of Canaan, as both my Muslim debaters backed out here.

[Himster]

Because Christians are automatically less of a scientist than an atheist, of course. That is why we use quotation marks for a Christian "biologist".

His point is that science qualifications from an institution who's priority is theology tend not to be as well respected or as successful in fields of science as colleges who concentrate on sciences. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive: however dogmatic bat **** crazy conspiracy theory pseudo science can come from an over-prioritization of religion over science on scientific matters, as is elegantly exemplified by total relism's posts.

[pacifism]

^Thanks. I kind of go off when people insinuate that extremely intelligent people; such as Dr. Benjamin Carson, William Lane Craig, etc. who are creationists have no place in the sciences. If you look at the definition of science alone, this will make even less sense, in my opinion anyway.

Anyways it's quite hilarious how much of a liar you are total but you should do it in a less recordable format.

My older brother would tell me: "if you try and you don't succeed . . . destroy all evidence that you tried." Not sure if that's relevant (or even possible in an internet forum), but it's some advice I wish to pass on to anyone who'll bother listen. Along with "if you try and fail the first time, bomb disposal isn't for you." My brother tells me alot of trying and failing, apparently.

Anyway, elfdude should save his documentation of private messages, since it isn't a debating challenge, like most of the posts in the last three pages, but is long and useful.
WARNING: I will report anything further that isn't a challenge, since this has been getting off-topic discussion has gone on long enough.

[Armatus]

Almost had a stroke reading some of TR's responses.

God damn what the hell.

I know an my doc says I gotta what the cholesterol.

It's good stuff.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I challenge Jom on the merits of my idea for the Rome 2 area of the forum.
2 heavy weights collide in this grudge match up for the title of champ or chump.

Jom.. Verses .... Tom..

[Toho]

but you're like in the junior league...

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I am in the pro league.

[knight of meh]

Tribunes don't make moderation policy .. you know this right?

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

He said my idea had no merits and I am here with my gloves on to prove otherwise..

[Hobbes]

Jom is being beta as usual, so I will fight in his place. Let's do this.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

What is beta.

[Hobbes]

Not alpha.