- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,03:36) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 28 2010,03:25) What I am saying is that the personal beliefs of a church father is not evidence. It is ad hominen. You may invoke church fathers if you wish. But I will not. And when you do invoke a father I will reply saying, “ad hominen” and move on to the next point. I am not going to get into that vicious cycle of repetition with you.
Hi Jack,Just so you understand that their will be up to 10 direct questions as Dennison has suggested. And you must DIRECTLY answer any and all questions put to you, unless they are deemed invalid or unrelated by the judge.
Agreed? Even if YOU think it doesn't require an answer, you must answer it if the judge says to.
Other than that, I'm fine with the time limits and length and everything else.
mike
Mike,It is not for Dennison to decide if ad hominens are valid or not. They are not valid. As a judge Dennison is under the generally accepted rules of debate unless we both agree that the personal beliefs of others are admissable. I do not agree. Therefore, Dennison is under the generally accepted rule that ad hominens are not valid.
Note Wikipedia's definition of an ad hominen argument:
“Argument to the person” redirects here. It is not to be confused with Appeal to the people.
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.I have not agreed to the ten questions. Dennison said that we did not have to do that and I explicitly said that I do not want to do that.
Dennison said that we could debate just scripture. What's the problem Mike?
Jack
Mikeboll said:
Quote What about archeaological proof?
Mikester! The topic is the plurality of God (or not). Archaeology cannot verify this either way. It is strictly determined by scriptural exegesis. Now don't be ridiculous.Can you prove from scripture that God is not a plural one? I can prove that He is. And I want to spend my alotted words developing my premise and answering your valid arguments. Ad hominens are not valid arguments and I will not spend my alotted words dealing with them. The personal beliefs of others are ad hominen. Ad hominens are not valid and this is not for Dennison to decide.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,15:24) Hi Dennison, Shut up, will ya?
We've almost come to the end of our debate about the debate.
Don't add more things to discuss.
peace and love,
mike
Yes Mikester. We have almost reached a final agreement. I am looking forward to a structured debate without the frustrations of the last “debate” so called.Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 29 2010,02:19) Mikeboll said: Quote What about archeaological proof?
Mikester! The topic is the plurality of God (or not). Archaeology cannot verify this either way. It is strictly determined by scriptural exegesis. Now don't be ridiculous.Can you prove from scripture that God is not a plural one? I can prove that He is. And I want to spend my alotted words developing my premise and answering your valid arguments. Ad hominens are not valid arguments and I will not spend my alotted words dealing with them. The personal beliefs of others are ad hominen. Ad hominens are not valid and this is not for Dennison to decide.
Jack
Hi Jack,I have clear archeaological proof that the plural of majesty was used by the predecessors of the Hebrews. And I will use it.
Also, call it what you like, but if I ask one single question that you refuse to answer DIRECTLY, it's over.
I couldn't care less about this “structured” stuff anyway. I just want my points and questions DIRECTLY addressed.
I will not negotiate on this point – so either be ready to answer every question, or don't even start.
mike
Is all this postering ever going to end?
Can I suggest that a moderator take over, set simple, acceptable terms, down the flag, 'and … off on the first furlong, over the first jump and into the straight. Mikeboll has a nose in front but KangarooJack is hopping back at his neck. A..n..d, now lets relook at the betting…it was 10 to 1 on for Mike but KJ was odds on at 8 to 1. Who did you put you shirt on?
Now back to the thrilling course being run by these two fine geldings…nothing between them, they are both the same, oh look, they've taken a wrong turn on the course but cos the jockeys are arguing they haven't noticed and noone is allowed to interupt them to tell them so, this gonna be fascinating, this is uncharted territory. The hurdles haven't been assesed by health and safety. One or both of them could get hurt, seriouslym even to their demise. Folks, it's like a two man ''Wacky Races'', what will happen next?
Over to you, SF'Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2010,13:26) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 29 2010,02:19) Mikeboll said: Quote What about archeaological proof?
Mikester! The topic is the plurality of God (or not). Archaeology cannot verify this either way. It is strictly determined by scriptural exegesis. Now don't be ridiculous.Can you prove from scripture that God is not a plural one? I can prove that He is. And I want to spend my alotted words developing my premise and answering your valid arguments. Ad hominens are not valid arguments and I will not spend my alotted words dealing with them. The personal beliefs of others are ad hominen. Ad hominens are not valid and this is not for Dennison to decide.
Jack
Hi Jack,I have clear archeaological proof that the plural of majesty was used by the predecessors of the Hebrews. And I will use it.
Also, call it what you like, but if I ask one single question that you refuse to answer DIRECTLY, it's over.
I couldn't care less about this “structured” stuff anyway. I just want my points and questions DIRECTLY addressed.
I will not negotiate on this point – so either be ready to answer every question, or don't even start.
mike
Mike,Without biblical examples of the plural of majesty your archaelogical evidence from Hebrew predacessors means nothing. If the Hebrews themselves did not use the plural of majesty, then you have no valid evidence. You have no archaeological evidence that the Hebrews used the plural of majesty because they did not. The predacessors to the Hebrews are not the Hebrews are they? So you have your answer already: Show me the use of the plural of majesty from scripture! Is this an an answer or not?
You have admitted before that you have no biblical examples of the plural of majesty.
The first time you give a “ad hominen” or an “appeal to the people” argument it is over.
Example of ad hominen: Eusebius wrote….
Example of appeal to the people: The people said Eusebius was a good teacher
If any one of these fallacies appears it's over.
If you do not answer a point DIRECTLY it's over. For example, in our former debate I made the point that it is as the begotten Son that Jesus is superior to the angels. Therefore, He could not have been begotten when He was lower than the angels. You ran from the point took refuge in some rubbish explanation from Revelation about Christ's new name You did not DIRECTLY deal Hebrews 1-2 at all.
I will not be bullied by you into giving an account for the beliefs of other men. I will give an account for my personal beliefs alone from scripture and I will attack your personal beliefs from scripture.
You are an insecure bully that is afraid to engage in a real debate based in valid evidence.
Jack
Quote (JustAskin @ June 29 2010,19:21) Is all this postering ever going to end? Can I suggest that a moderator take over, set simple, acceptable terms, down the flag, 'and … off on the first furlong, over the first jump and into the straight. Mikeboll has a nose in front but KangarooJack is hopping back at his neck. A..n..d, now lets relook at the betting…it was 10 to 1 on for Mike but KJ was odds on at 8 to 1. Who did you put you shirt on?
Now back to the thrilling course being run by these two fine geldings…nothing between them, they are both the same, oh look, they've taken a wrong turn on the course but cos the jockeys are arguing they haven't noticed and noone is allowed to interupt them to tell them so, this gonna be fascinating, this is uncharted territory. The hurdles haven't been assesed by health and safety. One or both of them could get hurt, seriouslym even to their demise. Folks, it's like a two man ''Wacky Races'', what will happen next?
Over to you, SF'
JA,First, the word is spelled “posturing” (with a “u”). Second, I saw your post yesterday inwhich you said that WJ “crawled out of the bottomless pit.”
Unbecoming for a moderator don't you think? Looks like this forum has lowered its standards in commissioning a “moderator” that cannot spell correctly or speak with grace. If you have a conscience you will clean up your act or resign if you can't.
KJ
Mike,
Your archaeological “evidence” is acceptable to me WITH Biblical examples. But no “ad hominen” or “appeal to the people” fallacies. These are universally described as invalid. Period!
Jack
Quote (JustAskin @ June 29 2010,13:21) Is all this postering ever going to end? Can I suggest that a moderator take over, set simple, acceptable terms, down the flag, 'and … off on the first furlong, over the first jump and into the straight. Mikeboll has a nose in front but KangarooJack is hopping back at his neck. A..n..d, now lets relook at the betting…it was 10 to 1 on for Mike but KJ was odds on at 8 to 1. Who did you put you shirt on?
Now back to the thrilling course being run by these two fine geldings…nothing between them, they are both the same, oh look, they've taken a wrong turn on the course but cos the jockeys are arguing they haven't noticed and noone is allowed to interupt them to tell them so, this gonna be fascinating, this is uncharted territory. The hurdles haven't been assesed by health and safety. One or both of them could get hurt, seriouslym even to their demise. Folks, it's like a two man ''Wacky Races'', what will happen next?
Over to you, SF'
Thank you for your report Ja,It seems they want to tease the crowd,
but i believe the crowd is getting restlessoh no! there is riot becuase these went off course!!!
I see WJ strangling David!!! and Jodi fighting with the devil! oh no is that Chosenone kicking numbers, and claiming that he doesnt have freewill to do it!!!!
oh no, Ed J is runnning the course and chanting English Gemtaria!Wow this is a circus Ja,
This is how the cookie crumbles,This is Dennison reporting from the race of the century for
HN-T8Ha ha, KJ, touche!
Did you also notice that WJ spelled “Poison” as 'poisen' (sic) – So I'm not sure what it means … Something 'nice' I hope!
Quote (JustAskin @ June 30 2010,06:45) Ha ha, KJ, touche! Did you also notice that WJ spelled “Poison” as 'poisen' (sic) – So I'm not sure what it means … Something 'nice' I hope!
WJ is not a moderator. But maybe my standards for the spelling for moderators is too rigid. As a moderator you should definitely speak with grace. Your statement that WJ came up from the bottomless pit for a little season was totally wrong.KJ
Hey, SF, we could do a double act.
So Funny.
Anyway, I thought you was in charge is debaccle – wait – that's a “past imperfect tense”: You were in charge BEFORE it became a “Debaccle”. It should be “I thought you was (sic) in charge of this that BECAME a debaccle” in the same way that “Jesus Christ” was not “SENT” by the Father because he wasn't “Jesus [the] Christ” before he was sent – but yet Jesus [the] Christ himself says “…and Jesus Christ who you sent” (Pedantics rule!)
On about that – God said that until he told Moses to call him “I am that I am” (and variations of translations) He was not known to the Hebrews by that name.
Is it interesting to ask: Why would God have a [Human] name and who why? If there is ONLY ONE of a thing and that thing (sorry) is Total: Omnipotent, Omni-everything – why would that one need a name?
The need for God to have a name was because the HUMAN MANKIND made gods of their own – so to distinguish THE GOD from the so-called 'other gods' He give Himself simply the most wonderfully simple and simply descriptive and everlasting title ever
“I AM”
Think about it – “I AM” – I just AM – nothing more complicated than that but yet deep, wide, expansive and all powerful – he just IS.“I AM”: “I WAS – I AM – I WILL BE”: “I AM”
“I am He who IS and Was and WILL be”
“I am He who does not change”
“God does not change”
“From generation to Generation He is God”Quote (JustAskin @ June 30 2010,01:09) Hey, SF, we could do a double act. So Funny.
Anyway, I thought you was in charge is debaccle – wait – that's a “past imperfect tense”: You were in charge BEFORE it became a “Debaccle”. It should be “I thought you was (sic) in charge of this that BECAME a debaccle” in the same way that “Jesus Christ” was not “SENT” by the Father because he wasn't “Jesus [the] Christ” before he was sent – but yet Jesus [the] Christ himself says “…and Jesus Christ who you sent” (Pedantics rule!)
On about that – God said that until he told Moses to call him “I am that I am” (and variations of translations) He was not known to the Hebrews by that name.
Is it interesting to ask: Why would God have a [Human] name and who why? If there is ONLY ONE of a thing and that thing (sorry) is Total: Omnipotent, Omni-everything – why would that one need a name?
The need for God to have a name was because the HUMAN MANKIND made gods of their own – so to distinguish THE GOD from the so-called 'other gods' He give Himself simply the most wonderfully simple and simply descriptive and everlasting title ever
“I AM”
Think about it – “I AM” – I just AM – nothing more complicated than that but yet deep, wide, expansive and all powerful – he just IS.“I AM”: “I WAS – I AM – I WILL BE”: “I AM”
“I am He who IS and Was and WILL be”
“I am He who does not change”
“God does not change”
“From generation to Generation He is God”
Ja, i should be the joker while your the riddler.
=)I believe this is called a democratic way of doing things, since im NOT a moderator. i cannot enforce or force any rules, so my authority only comes through the particpants of the debate.
sinced KJ striped me of my authority, i can only simply abide by the terms that they set themselves.
anyways,
God has many names, each name defining his personality,
Who he is,
his roles, his conditions, his feelings, his personality,
He Simply described himself.And so Simply God works in Simplicity
And it would be impossible to give God almighty a name that would describe everything about him, because knowing everything abotu him would kill us,
so the name that describes everything about him, or better yet defining exactly who he is, will only be revealed when we are with him, or how revelations presents a “NEW name” of who knows what it will be.God is good.
God is simple,and thats why we are simply forgiven.
SF said:
Quote sinced KJ striped me of my authority, i can only simply abide by the terms that they set themselves. SF,
How would you rule on “ad hominen” and “appeal to the people”? Would you require me to answer an “ad hominen” or an “appeal to the people” argument? It would help if you told us what to expect.KJ
Kj,
ad hominen from wiki
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]In Debate the only Ad hominem you can have, In other words stating what you believe, is in the introduction, not contentions, and shortly in the conclusion.
In other words, i wouldnt accept an Ad hominem as a contention at all, because the evidence is what counts, if you look at the cf debat format thats what its all about validation not personal beliefs.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 30 2010,14:53) Kj, ad hominen from wiki
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]In Debate the only Ad hominem you can have, In other words stating what you believe, is in the introduction, not contentions, and shortly in the conclusion.
In other words, i wouldnt accept an Ad hominem as a contention at all, because the evidence is what counts, if you look at the cf debat format thats what its all about validation not personal beliefs.
SF,It sure would have saved us some time if you had said this earlier.
Okay, I will now proceed to work on my opening statement. I will send it to you in a few days. I will have company from out of state for a few days and will have time constraints.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 30 2010,12:29) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 30 2010,14:53) Kj, ad hominen from wiki
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]In Debate the only Ad hominem you can have, In other words stating what you believe, is in the introduction, not contentions, and shortly in the conclusion.
In other words, i wouldnt accept an Ad hominem as a contention at all, because the evidence is what counts, if you look at the cf debat format thats what its all about validation not personal beliefs.
SF,It sure would have saved us some time if you had said this earlier.
Okay, I will now proceed to work on my opening statement. I will send it to you in a few days. I will have company from out of state for a few days and will have time constraints.
KJ
KJ,That was the purpose of the CF thread, to deal with real contentions and not with personal belief.
KJ,
When I am posting as Moderator you will see that I put: '[Moderator]' in the post.
And since when does being a moderator mean that that persin neads to no how to spill? Did Moses have elecution skills even though he grew up in the best [human] education environment at the time under Pharoah?
Snap to it Jack!
Get in the act
Revise the facts
Before your spirit reactsQuote (JustAskin @ June 30 2010,19:24) KJ, When I am posting as Moderator you will see that I put: '[Moderator]' in the post.
And since when does being a moderator mean that that persin neads to no how to spill? Did Moses have elecution skills even though he grew up in the best [human] education environment at the time under Pharoah?
Snap to it Jack!
Get in the act
Revise the facts
Before your spirit reacts
Mr. Moderator,What about “Mike, Jack and SF only” do you not understand? Nick and t8 are not trespassing here.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 30 2010,02:17) Mike, Without biblical examples of the plural of majesty your archaelogical evidence from Hebrew predacessors means nothing. If the Hebrews themselves did not use the plural of majesty, then you have no valid evidence. You have no archaeological evidence that the Hebrews used the plural of majesty because they did not. The predacessors to the Hebrews are not the Hebrews are they? So you have your answer already: Show me the use of the plural of majesty from scripture! Is this an an answer or not?
You have admitted before that you have no biblical examples of the plural of majesty.
The first time you give a “ad hominen” or an “appeal to the people” argument it is over.
I'm out.mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
