- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is what debating scripture should be like:
Jack: God is a plural God because of the “us” and “we” in Genesis.
Mike: Is it possible that instead of being schitzophrenic, God was actually talking to someone other than Himself? Perhaps His Son who we all know played a big part in the creation.
Jack: Blah, blah, blah……nothing that even resembles a direct answer to my question…..
Dennison: Jack, you must directly answer Mike's question or his point is valid and yours is dropped.
Jack: Blah, blah blah, accusations of cheating……acusations of unfairness……slams of both me and Dennison……..
Dennison: Jack, last chance. The question is direct, so you must answer it or forfeit.
Jack: Fine. I was quitting this debate anyway because Mike's a heretic and called God a schitzophrenic! (Insert insulting “I won and Mike's an idiot” graphic here)
And then I'll show my archeaological proof, which he will say doesn't count because it's not in scripture. And then he'll insist that his conjecture is actually fact. You see, I've been through this crap with him before. But that's fine.
Dennison already has my opening. If Jack wants to start with this, fine. But “mark my words”, nothing will be resolved, for Jack will NEVER answer that first question I just posted. He will NEVER bring himself to admit that, “Yes, it IS possible that God was talking to His 'co-creator' Jesus at the time.”
Whatever……wake me up when someone actually wants to do a debate where questions must be answered.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2010,09:28) This is what debating scripture should be like: Jack: God is a plural God because of the “us” and “we” in Genesis.
Mike: Is it possible that instead of being schitzophrenic, God was actually talking to someone other than Himself? Perhaps His Son who we all know played a big part in the creation.
Jack: Blah, blah, blah……nothing that even resembles a direct answer to my question…..
Dennison: Jack, you must directly answer Mike's question or his point is valid and yours is dropped.
Jack: Blah, blah blah, accusations of cheating……acusations of unfairness……slams of both me and Dennison……..
Dennison: Jack, last chance. The question is direct, so you must answer it or forfeit.
Jack: Fine. I was quitting this debate anyway because Mike's a heretic and called God a schitzophrenic! (Insert insulting “I won and Mike's an idiot” graphic here)
And then I'll show my archeaological proof, which he will say doesn't count because it's not in scripture. And then he'll insist that his conjecture is actually fact. You see, I've been through this crap with him before. But that's fine.
Dennison already has my opening. If Jack wants to start with this, fine. But “mark my words”, nothing will be resolved, for Jack will NEVER answer that first question I just posted. He will NEVER bring himself to admit that, “Yes, it IS possible that God was talking to His 'co-creator' Jesus at the time.”
Whatever……wake me up when someone actually wants to do a debate where questions must be answered.
mike
lol mike.great post,
I only expected this,
lol….lol great observations.
Anyways..
thats just funny.
Dennison, Mike,
Expect my opening statement around the middle of next week. I have company from out of state over for a few days
Jack
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 05 2010,19:43) fyi, Mike is ready, just waiting for you kj
sf,I finished my opening statement except for editing. I will be sending it to you tomorrow. I had company from out of state for several days who left this morning. I did not want to be rude by being on the computer.
Remember that you will post both opening statements AT THE SAME TIME with mine on top. Then I will give the first rebuttal in a total of ten rebuttals each. Then we will both send our closing statements to you and you will post them at the same time with mine on top. Then the debate will be over and all may post on the thread.
Mike,
All future debates between us will also be structured like the one which is about to start.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 06 2010,11:11) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 05 2010,19:43) fyi, Mike is ready, just waiting for you kj
sf,I finished my opening statement except for editing. I will be sending it to you tomorrow. I had company from out of state for several days who left this morning. I did not want to be rude by being on the computer.
Remember that you will post both opening statements AT THE SAME TIME with mine on top. Then I will give the first rebuttal in a total of ten rebuttals each. Then we will both send our closing statements to you and you will post them at the same time with mine on top. Then the debate will be over and all may post on the thread.
Mike,
All future debates between us will also be structured like the one which is about to start.
Jack
We'll see.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,12:19) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 06 2010,11:11) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 05 2010,19:43) fyi, Mike is ready, just waiting for you kj
sf,I finished my opening statement except for editing. I will be sending it to you tomorrow. I had company from out of state for several days who left this morning. I did not want to be rude by being on the computer.
Remember that you will post both opening statements AT THE SAME TIME with mine on top. Then I will give the first rebuttal in a total of ten rebuttals each. Then we will both send our closing statements to you and you will post them at the same time with mine on top. Then the debate will be over and all may post on the thread.
Mike,
All future debates between us will also be structured like the one which is about to start.
Jack
We'll see.
There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either rules or not at all.Jack
It is done!
lady and gentlemen,
im proud to say this debate has already started,
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 06 2010,19:09) There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either rules or not at all. Jack
Hi Jack,I noticed you left one word out of your post. Here, I'll fix it for ya.
There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either MY rules or not at all.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,04:20) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 06 2010,19:09) There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either rules or not at all. Jack
Hi Jack,I noticed you left one word out of your post. Here, I'll fix it for ya.
There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either MY rules or not at all.
thats funny mike,
I suggest ya continue to communicate before a debate, so that you will know what to debate aboutQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,05:04) Are we to have a Q&A part of this debate, or is Jack too scared to answer direct questions? mike
I was going to ask the same question.
again i would suggest ten direct questions before the rebuttals,Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,11:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,05:04) Are we to have a Q&A part of this debate, or is Jack too scared to answer direct questions? mike
I was going to ask the same question.
again i would suggest ten direct questions before the rebuttals,
I would suggest after, but I'm okay either way. I would just like to opportunity to have some questions answered.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,05:14) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,11:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,05:04) Are we to have a Q&A part of this debate, or is Jack too scared to answer direct questions? mike
I was going to ask the same question.
again i would suggest ten direct questions before the rebuttals,
I would suggest after, but I'm okay either way. I would just like to opportunity to have some questions answered.
or we can have one question from both, after every rebuttal. because having ten questions in the end doesnt solve anything, unless your going to include it in the closing statements
which wouldnt be good because closing statement should sum up the debate.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,11:17) or we can have one question from both, after every rebuttal.
I LOVE that idea!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,11:04) Are we to have a Q&A part of this debate, or is Jack too scared to answer direct questions? mike
Mike,Please stop with the childishness. I'm sick of it.
I originally offered to have 10 “free for all” rebuttals. I suggested that there be no requirements except word length. If you want to ask a question of me after each rebuttal then fine. But neither of us are bound by it. You agreed to 10 “free for all” rebuttals with no requirements except word length.
Again, stop being obnoxious.
KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,10:20) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 06 2010,19:09) There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either rules or not at all. Jack
Hi Jack,I noticed you left one word out of your post. Here, I'll fix it for ya.
There will be no future discussion between us other than structured debates. It's either MY rules or not at all.
Mike,You got to pick the topic and who goes first. I got to pick the format. If there is a future debate I will pick the topic and who goes first and you can pick the format.
You seem to forget that we negotiated the rules and you agreed. The only thing I required was that there be no ad hominens which turned out for your good. SF said that he will not accept ad hominens. So if I had not pushed the issue you would have used ad hominens and they would have been disqualified. So your welcome Mike. Now you can avoid using invalid arguments only to have them disqualified.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
