As we can see, my opening post, simple and straight forward.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I explain pretty much exactly what i mean in the message.
More meritless objections and bluster. Yawn
Unsurprising response.
Was thinking awesome, he's going to debate this will be fun.
Isn't this just what I had told him no on?
I thought I had.
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.
Natural response of course, but then you follow:
What the heck? Where does this come from? Isn't debating and typing kind of the same thing when it comes to internet arguments?
Yawn. Of course I'm not backing out of the debate. Seems to me the posturing is now a ploy to avoid debating.
That's my last post. I pretty clear I'm still up for debate.
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?