CHALLENGE THREAD -- Issue a challenge here

[Elfdude]

Don't let him get off the hook on this one

I'm not letting him off the hook I'm putting him back on it. If he can't demonstrate to anyone that his racial claims are valid then odds are whether you were black or not his argument would be the same.

I knew that hint to my complexion would make him invoke it has a reason not to debate because my skin color makes "bias" and it kind of sad that He fell so easily for the bait, but we can't give him this luxury because how many times on this forum did we had piss matches about Israel, Arab countries, circumcision, Europe, US, Soviet Union, Christians, atheist, etc much others who take the subject personally because they are somehow related to the subject and if you don't take the subject personally then discussing it is kind of pointless.

I do take the subject seriously because it's hypocrisy like this that literally leads to the evil in the world. While it's neat that you have a personal involvement in the subject whether you do or not is not going to change the nature of the debate.

If Glorious Nationalist don't have the maturity to do what everyone else does in this forum and beyond then it is his loss, if you want to indulge him on idea that He can dismiss people based on skin color it is your choice and you probably going to crush him because facts are on you side but this would basically be an admission to his point that IQ inferior black people can't debate him.

No it would not be an admission. Personal preference does not affect reality. Just because he doesn't want to debate you doesn't mean his point is correct, in fact it likely points to the opposite, that he's avoiding a debate because his words are empty and hallow.

Glorious, you still haven't responded to me. Will you take me up on the debate or will you hide with your tail between your legs?

[The Glorious Moldovan]

Glorious, you still haven't responded to me. Will you take me up on the debate or will you hide with your tail between your legs?

If you want to

[Elfdude]

Cool, I'll make an OP here soon and PM you about it though it's finals week so you might have to wait a bit, if you'd prefer to start the thread yourself make a post defining a few of your positions and why and I'll respond in earnest.

[The Glorious Moldovan]

I have some finals to study for myself,so ill wait for you to make the thread

[Aenima]

Dis gone be good. I might just keep an eye out for this.

[The Glorious Moldovan]

Im not expecting any of this to lead to lead to a common ground in discussions,there will always exist extreme people who will dismiss everything and throw at you terms like "racist" "bigot" "white supremacist" while lacking the capacity to observ the point and make conclusions out of it

[Aenima]

Im not expecting any of this to lead to lead to a common ground in discussions,there will always exist extreme people who will dismiss everything and throw at you terms like "racist" "bigot" "white supremacist" while lacking the capacity to observ the point and make conclusions out of it

Well if your argument is the "right" one then your evidence should be enough to prove your point.

[Armatus]

I would probably take you up on that last one, if you would be willing, and if you would synthesize what exactly you mean by "socialism" and "capitalism." My problem with a debate like that is that the sheer breadth and depth of the subject may make it impossible to discuss without very specific parameters.

I would pay to see this!


edit: ....lol guess I should check the main forum!

[total relism]

I challenge Total Relism to a debate, because it's funny.

Topic: Abiogenesis (Not evolution) VS Creation

Rules: Use your own words, unless asked for verification, in which case, provide Harvard referencing. Posts are to be of a reasonable size.

sorry just saw this.

not sure what your offer is here, what position will you be defending?. i also have to reject this arbitrary pointless rule "provide Harvard referencing", the style of referencing should not matter.Please pm me.

[Helel]

i also have to reject this arbitrary pointless rule "provide Harvard referencing", the style of referencing should not matter.Please pm me.

How is that arbitrary? Should I be allowed to use my roommate as a reference in a serious debate? Please.

[Sharpe]

sorry just saw this.

not sure what your offer is here, what position will you be defending?. i also have to reject this arbitrary pointless rule "provide Harvard referencing", the style of referencing should not matter.Please pm me.

Well because of it's wide recognition.

Accurate referencing is a key component of good academic practice and enhances the legitimacy of your claims: it shows that your writing is based on knowledge and informed by appropriate academic reading. You will also guarantee that anyone reading your arguments can trace the sources you have used, rather than spurting apparent knowledge and defending it.

[Armatus]

I'm sorry, but I about fell off my chair when I read that heh..

[Sharpe]

Haha why's that?

[total relism]

How is that arbitrary? Should I be allowed to use my roommate as a reference in a serious debate? Please.

Well because of it's wide recognition.

Accurate referencing is a key component of good academic practice and enhances the legitimacy of your claims: it shows that your writing is based on knowledge and informed by appropriate academic reading. You will also guarantee that anyone reading your arguments can trace the sources you have used, rather than spurting apparent knowledge and defending it.

i always give references, in fact i get in trouble for doing to many. I disagree with having to do a certain style.

is a citation style in which partial citations— for example (Smith 2010, p. 1)—are enclosed within parentheses(round brackets) and embedded in the text, either within or after a sentence, as opposed to the footnote style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthetical_referencing

[Helel]

i always give references, in fact i get in trouble for doing to many. I disagree with having to do a certain style.

is a citation style in which partial citations— for example (Smith 2010, p. 1)—are enclosed within parentheses(round brackets) and embedded in the text, either within or after a sentence, as opposed to the footnote style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthetical_referencing

Proper citation is not the point. In your case, the problem lies with who and what you cite. You have to realize that non-Christians aren't likely to be impressed by a "biologist" who got his degree from a Christian college.

[pacifism]

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

[Armatus]

The problem lies in how the information/material was acquired. Everyone has the opportunity to perform "science" only those who can withstand the scrutiny will prevail.

So using qualified references makes arguing easy for the lay person, but alternative sources require a greater burden for the debater, because in the end who will have the trust in a court of law?

[Helel]

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

Way to be a victim about it. I put quotation marks around the word biologist because Creationists aren't interested in biology, they are interested in defending a literal translation of the Bible, as were the "colleges" that educated them. If Creationists had valid arguments against evolution, the proposed age of the Earth, etc, they would deserve serious consideration. Unfortunately, as it stands, Creationists often display ignorance of basic scientific concepts, such as the rock cycle, or Hubble's Constant.

Anyhow, if you think the so-called "experts" who are referenced in articles posted by creationist.org or answersingenesis.org would be capable of standing up to the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific method and/or the peer review processes that are applied to top-tier scientists, you are sorely mistaken.

[total relism]

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

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:?

Way to be a victim about it. I put quotation marks around the word biologist because Creationists aren't interested in biology, they are interested in defending a literal translation of the Bible, as were the "colleges" that educated them. If Creationists had valid arguments against evolution, the proposed age of the Earth, etc, they would deserve serious consideration. Unfortunately, as it stands, Creationists often display ignorance of basic scientific concepts, such as the rock cycle, or Hubble's Constant.

Anyhow, if you think the so-called "experts" who are referenced in articles posted by creationist.org or answersingenesis.org would be capable of standing up to the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific method and/or the peer review processes that are applied to top-tier scientists, you are sorely mistaken.

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?.

[Helel]

this is most certainly not true at all,your bias and arbitrary bigotry allows you to assume this, no logical argument.

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

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:?

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.

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?

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