Commentary on "Last Man Standing"!

DapperGent

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't know - lately he appears to think that anyone arguing against must be intoxicated by some form or another.

We is all drunk on reality.

Goduznt Xzst

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't know - lately he appears to think that anyone arguing against him must be intoxicated by some form or another.

It's part of his tired tactic or sneaking in a veiled insult when rebutting. You are either a drunk, a muppet, a troll... or some other such insult. He'll highlight irrelevant grammatical and linguistic errors, pointlessly examine analogies, and take the first chance to take a thread off onto a tangent that he might have an upper hand in. It does not surprise me that PDN is chomping at the bit to be let loose on a questioning teenager that he will be able to easily rile.

stevejazzx

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's part of his tired tactic or sneaking in a veiled insult when rebutting. You are either a drunk, a muppet, a troll... or some other such insult. He'll highlight irrelevant grammatical and linguistic errors, pointlessly examine analogies, and take the first chance to take a thread off onto a tangent that he might have an upper hand in. It does not surprise me that PDN is chomping at the bit to be let loose on a questioning teenager that he will be able to easily rile.

I have to say that, based on what I've seen that more than adequately covers his 'style'.

Dumbledore

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for this debate which is good to see. I have done a small amount of research during this free period and at the moment am considering basing my argument around reason, that between 1400BC and 500 BC, in other words the times when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments and the time the Old Testament was completed according to here , there is obviously a very healthy chance that there may have been some room for error or stories added or taken away in that time, basically like a 900 year long game of Chinese whispers.

Of course I may not go in this direction at all, any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

Dades

Dumbledore wrote: »

Of course I may not go in this direction at all, any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

We should have more of these only I don't think there are enough worthy competitors:P we'd have more fun arguing against ourselves.

robindch

Dumbledore wrote: »

am considering basing my argument around reason, that between 1400BC and 500 BC [...] there is obviously a very healthy chance that there may have been some room for error or stories added or taken away

...or you could ask why the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible, has a story which (except for names) is virtually identical to the story of Noah. However, that's derivation which isn't the evidence of "editing" that PDN's looking for.

Dumbledore wrote: »

any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

Unless somebody starts slinging mud or lobbing witless profanities around, I'd imagine that neither of the forum moderators is going to intervene all that much. Opening arguments are due whenever you like -- fire away.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote: »

We should have more of these only I don't think there are enough worthy competitors:P we'd have more fun arguing against ourselves.

This circus is no more than a diversion from the everyday humdrum of heathens v Christian debates that go on here!

Though if the debate style thread works out, we might consider future challenges - with more interesting motions and more matched opponents.

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

This circus is no more than a diversion from the everyday humdrum of heathens v Christian debates that go on here!

...and more matched opponents.

...what like Robin vs. JC or Wicknight vs. Kelly1..:)

seriously though I do think it is something that might liven up froum if done properly..particularly if I stop slagging it right now!

Goduznt Xzst

Dumbledore wrote: »

any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

BEGIN!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

JimiTime

'Commentary on Last man Standing' is what I read in the title. Seems more of a 'Roll up, Roll up, take pot shots at PDN' to me. Anyway.....

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

'Commentary on Last man Standing' is what I read in the title. Seems more of a 'Roll up, Roll up, take pot shots at PDN' to me. Anyway.....

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

d) PDN is frequently vitriolic himself and thereby recieves some blowback?
Just a thought.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

Boo!
Hiss!!
BOO!!!
Gerrerow aur fourum!!!

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

...or you could ask why the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible, has a story which (except for names) is virtually identical to the story of Noah. However, that's derivation which isn't the evidence of "editing" that PDN's looking for.

I may be missing the context completely, but would there be any relevance in my favourite little biblical inconsistency - the stuff about the concept of a virgin birth coming from a mistranslation of the prophecy of Isaiah?

I know that doesn't necessarily mean 'editing'. But it sure does suggest someone tailoring the account to what they thought was expected by the prophecy.

That said, is it fair to say that 'editing' isn't particularly the issue. Doesn't the issue boil down more to the time that might have elapsed between the earliest written records and the life of Jesus. IIRC from earlier discussions, the most optimistic Christian position was that the first written records could be dated to a few decades after the death of Jesus. That's both long enough for non-believers to say that the tale would have grown in the telling, and short enough for believers to say its substantially valid.

JFK visited Ireland in 1963. If we'd no written records of that, how confident would we be if we set about it now, relying solely on the evidence of people who claimed to have been witnesses? I'd take it that we'd accept the main points - that someone called JFK had visited, and even that he had appeared in certain places where he may have had said certain things. But, against that, we have to judge how the collective memory contains errors. For example, many folk attribute a quote to Jack Lynch in 1970 "the Irish Government can no longer stand idly by", where he apparantly actually said "can no longer stand by". How solid would we expect memories of a speech by JFK to be now?

Dumbledore

Dades wrote: »

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

stevejazzx

Dumbledore wrote: »

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

What were those odds on PDN again?.....I'll take them.

Dumbledore

stevejazzx wrote: »

What were those odds on PDN again?.....I'll take them.

I get the impression you think I will not be a good debater simply because of my age, a point that was raised before I think. Very well, I can not change my age or your prejudices, but I contend that age is only a number, and that the truth is the truth, no matter who says it.

Genghiz Cohen

I'm sure you'll do fine dear, now enjoy school.
:pac:

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

Please don't anyone send me PMs. I'll happily address whatever comes up in the debate. So far I'm liking the suggestions that have been offered in this thread.

stevejazzx

Dumbledore wrote: »

I get the impression you think I will not be a good debater simply because of my age, a point that was raised before I think. Very well, I can not change my age or your prejudices, but I contend that age is only a number, and that the truth is the truth, no matter who says it.

Good lord, if that got you upset PDN is going to eviscerate you.

fitz0

Maybe the two of them shouldn't be allowed to look at this thread sos they can devise their own arguments and counterarguments without looking at whats being said here?

As for the debate Ill stake my faith in an omnipotent deity on this one...:pac:


Oh please please please can we have kelly1 on for a "debate"?

Dumbledore

stevejazzx wrote: »

Good lord, if that got you upset PDN is going to eviscerate you.

Not at all, it was more about me just thinking it was silly to judge somebody on their age, if that is what the poster meant.

This event was held in Ireland actually, and says the best debater in the world is also a student, so if anybody thinks that the younger a person is the less debating skills they have, I offer this as evidence to the contrary.

stevejazzx

Dumbledore wrote: »

Not at all, it was more about me just thinking it was silly to judge somebody on their age, if that is what the poster meant.

This event was held in Ireland actually, and says the best debater in the world is also a student, so if anybody thinks that the younger a person is the less debating skills they have, I offer this as evidence to the contrary.

I wasn't talking about your age but rather the amount of time you reckon it is going to take you to produce your first post. Stop being so sensitive about your age, the proof as they say is in the pudding.

Dumbledore

stevejazzx wrote: »

I wasn't talking about your age but rather the amount of time you reckon it is going to take you to produce your first post. Stop being so sensitive about your age, the proof as they say is in the pudding.

Ah ok, I misunderstood your post. I am not being sensitive at all about my age I am not the one who brought it up in this forum. Well I apologise that I can not post at your will but I like to have time to thoroughly research this issue as opposed to just posting willy-nilly and it being utter rubbish!

Fanny Cradock

It's the wrong from to be talking about willies.

studiorat

I like!
The Kid vs The Pastor of Muppets

Smackdown!!!

Nodin

Overblood wrote: »

.

'Schnell, turn me into ze wind....'

Bduffman

For what its worth, I think the idea of one on one debates is great. In the case of this one its just silly. One person should not have the burden of proof. Why can't both simply give their opinions on why they think their view is correct? Neither side is going to be able to provide proof, yet it will look like PDN wins as all he has to do is provide just enough doubt.
Thats something a primary school student could do never mind a leaving cert student.

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

Seems more of a 'Roll up, Roll up, take pot shots at PDN' to me. Anyway.....

It's really meant more as a forewarning for Dumbledore.

PDN wrote: »

a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone.

I've said it before, I love the stuff the Christians post in this forum. Ask yourself why.

PDN wrote: »

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum.

or could it be because you say things like...

PDN wrote: »

c) Some are just tools.

Well at least you're consistent :rolleyes: I'll give you that much. I find your method of argument to be, as stevejazzx has said, "frequently vitriolic". You tread over tired arguments, and when you feel you are losing ground you pick a minor discrepancy to highlight as if it adds weight to your original point. You purposely lace your remarks with insults to provoke an angered reaction then apologize when you get it and assume some self-created moral higher ground as if proclaiming victory. It is a fairly underhanded tactic imo.

Dumbledore wrote: »

I get the impression you think I will not be a good debater simply because of my age

I think the reason is, is that you are not weathered in this forum, so the posters here are trying to urge some forbearance before beginning a public debate with someone who has heard every argument for atheism and doesn't accept them, whereas the back of your ears are still drying off.

I'd STRONGLY advise you to spend the first page or two defining what the both of you actually agree on in regards to the argument. It will make things a lot easier later on if you choose to go forward with it.