Solo Debate vs Johnathan; Moitorium on outside posts

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Quite the contrary; in fact, the confusion of a melee allows him to evade points much more easily by answering the only the points he wishes to answer and dismissing the rest for lack of time.

To address this issue I suggest that a solo debate vs Johnathan be started; with no outside posts allowed. In, my opinion the opponent should be DW (aka Mike), since he is the most capable debater I've seen on the board. (I wouldn't presume to volunteer him though.) If he should decline I'm willing to step in and debate Jonathan, unless another capable debater is selected by Mike, or the board at large.

The the issue that would be debated would be the existence of God and the Validity of the Bible. If Jonathan cannot prove that his belief in God is valid and that the Bible is divine in origin, through reason, then we can conclude that all of posts, that relate to religious issues, are mere prosthelezing. As of such, we would be perfectly justified in ignoring all such posts as trolling/spam and in considering him a troller/spammer on such issues as he would have no evidence to justify any claims or positions that he might take.

[SirNitram]

I was unaware he was so important. That must come from not giving much of a damn.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I was unaware he was so important. That must come from not giving much of a damn.

His weaseling is so irritating that I want his irrationalitiy to be shoved in his face. I want the thin veneer of "reason" he uses to cover his faith to be stripped away. Basically I want it to be shown that he's just prosteltising and not actually debating.

[Jonathan]

To address this issue I suggest that a solo debate vs Johnathan

Could you please start spelling my name right? It's in every post I make, so it really shouldn't be that hard, assuming it's a simple mistake which I so far believe it to be. After all, you do occassioanlly spell it right. To continually call someone by the wrong name just to wind them up would be incredibly childish and I hope that none of you would do that.

be started; with no outside posts allowed. In, my opinion the opponent should be DW (aka Mike), since he is the most capable debater I've seen on the board. (I wouldn't presume to volunteer him though.) If he should decline I'm willing to step in and debate Jonathan, unless another capable debater is selected by Mike, or the board at large.

In all honesty, I consider Mike to be a bigot who will lie about what I say, ignore my points and then calim he's pressurised me into admitting something when in fact I volunteered the question and answer myself. And he spends far too much time on insults and has a generally belligerent tone. I'd prefer to debate someone with some manners and a more civil disposition.

The the issue that would be debated would be the existence of God and the Validity of the Bible. If Jonathan cannot prove that his belief in God is valid and that the Bible is divine in origin, through reason, then we can conclude that all of posts, that relate to religious issues, are mere prosthelezing. As of such, we would be perfectly justified in ignoring all such posts as trolling/spam and in considering him a troller/spammer on such issues as he would have no evidence to justify any claims or positions that he might take.

Oh please. You're setting up a position that I obviously can't win. I've siad time and agin that I can't prove that the Bible is divine. There is evidence that it is, but not the conclusive proof you seem to be demanding. Otherwise there would be no debate.

And I consider all of my posts to be evangelical to some degree in that I am talking about God. That doesn't mean I can't be debating at the same time. And your whole premise that not being able to prove conclusively = no evidence is a logical fallacy.

[Colonel Olrik]

Me, I think the forum mods should HOS his posts and let the Horsemen go wild on them. Just my neutral opinion, completely devoided of any obscure interests.

Debating him is no more fun than going against a brick wall, head first.

[Jonathan]

Me, I think the forum mods should HOS his posts and let the Horsemen go wild on them. Just my neutral opinion, completely devoided of any obscure interests.

Debating him is no more fun than going against a brick wall, head first.

I could say the same of the people who think that making an insult constitutes a logical rebuttal. I'm not saying that's you, BTW, I'm just tired of people doing that and receiving no censure for it, which implies that it's condoned by everyone else. Very little incentive to debate here really if that's true. In fact, that gives me an idea.

[Colonel Olrik]

Me, I think the forum mods should HOS his posts and let the Horsemen go wild on them. Just my neutral opinion, completely devoided of any obscure interests.

Debating him is no more fun than going against a brick wall, head first.

I could say the same of the people who think that making an insult constitutes a logical rebuttal. I'm not saying that's you, BTW, I'm just tired of people doing that and receiving no censure for it, which implies that it's condoned by everyone else.

An insult is meant simply to be insultive and is well used when nothing else works in holing someone's brick wall. I've debated you a while back, and I have no interest in doing it again. You run away from the questions and possibly verifiable / provable facts, to focus only in your particular view of the world.

Very little incentive to debate here really if that's true. In fact, that gives me an idea.

Let's hope that you're leaving.

[Sir Sirius]

Jonathan, read the motto of this place (it's in the upper left corner, just below "STARDESTROYER.NET").

You would be one of the stupid people.

[jegs2]

I'd recommend you (Blkberry) or Ted C. to debate with Jonathan. IMO, Mike would get irritated with him too quickly.

[SirNitram]

I was unaware he was so important. That must come from not giving much of a damn.

His weaseling is so irritating that I want his irrationalitiy to be shoved in his face. I want the thin veneer of "reason" he uses to cover his faith to be stripped away. Basically I want it to be shown that he's just prosteltising and not actually debating.

Anyone can see that, Blkbrry. If you want to see a one-on-one, do it yourself.. It's awfully rude to volunteer someone else for such a task, since it's usually pretty time-consuming. Just HOS the threads that become trolling and let it die like every other kind.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

If you want to see a one-on-one, do it yourself.. It's awfully rude to volunteer someone else for such a task, since it's usually pretty time-consuming.

I suggested DW, I didn't volunteer him. There is a big difference between the two.

[Beowulf]

Jonathan is a brick wall to bash your head against. When it comes to religon, don't even try. He doesn't quite get that he's one of the stupid people in the SD.net motto...

[Darth Gojira]

Jonathan is a brick wall to bash your head against. When it comes to religon, don't even try. He doesn't quite get that he's one of the stupid people in the SD.net motto...

Why are WALLS OF IGNORANCE so common? Something in the water?

[Beowulf]

Jonathan is a brick wall to bash your head against. When it comes to religon, don't even try. He doesn't quite get that he's one of the stupid people in the SD.net motto...

Why are WALLS OF IGNORANCE so common? Something in the water?

It's because they don't want to learn. It's hard to make someone learn when they refuse to listen.

[Durandal]

Quite the contrary; in fact, the confusion of a melee allows him to evade points much more easily by answering the only the points he wishes to answer and dismissing the rest for lack of time.

To address this issue I suggest that a solo debate vs Johnathan be started; with no outside posts allowed. In, my opinion the opponent should be DW (aka Mike), since he is the most capable debater I've seen on the board. (I wouldn't presume to volunteer him though.) If he should decline I'm willing to step in and debate Jonathan, unless another capable debater is selected by Mike, or the board at large.

Mike has already debated Boyd, and it was very long. See his Hate Mail page on his Creationism site. Volunteering him would be pointless. Been there, done that. And yes, you did volunteer him. You put his name in the poll.

I've already debated Boyd. See various threads on ASVS. I guess you can debate him if you want, but his arguments are already on public display here, on ASVS and on Mike's site. You'd be essentially beating a dead horse.

I guess I could debate Jon on the validity of his conclusion that the Bible is divine based on the evidence he thinks supports that conclusion, if anyone would like to see that.

[Sir Sirius]

I guess I could debate Jon on the validity of his conclusion that the Bible is divine based on the evidence he thinks supports that conclusion, if anyone would like to see that.

I would, fundie bashing is always fun to watch.

[Darth Wong]

In all honesty, I consider Mike to be a bigot who will lie about what I say, ignore my points and then calim he's pressurised me into admitting something when in fact I volunteered the question and answer myself.

Anyone can look through the "Christian school" thread and see what a bullshitter you are. This is your way of distracting from the fact that you were indeed pressured into an embarrassing admission. The fact that you insisted on evading the question a half-dozen times is irrefutable fact, and your insistence on calling me a bigot and a liar is pretty piss-weak in light of the fact that you cannot produce evidence of either.

And he spends far too much time on insults and has a generally belligerent tone. I'd prefer to debate someone with some manners and a more civil disposition.

And who doesn't kick your ass and make you look bad, I presume? Sorry if I have a negative tone toward people who condone Biblical baby-killing; I guess it's just "bigoted" to say that people who condone baby-killing are bad