I don't really care what you like or dislike, you're the one who made the combative claim that I avoid debating with you. That is not the case. Now you're pulling a delay tactic for no apparent reason other than a hypothetical claim you're engaged in other debates. I would suggest you do not make a challenge or accept a challenge if you are not available to actually act on it. Do I believe there's a point to debating to you? No.
It's quite obvious from reading the majority of your posts that you are incapable (or rather cannot be bothered) of understanding the science yourself and instead rely upon secondary sources from what you consider credible sources on different topics, because you cannot actually respond to the topics yourself you cannot begin to debate them or comprehend the opposition to your topic. This is what I seek to avoid because I'm not going to bother if you can't debate yourself. Case in point your debate about the age of the world in the fight club archives. It's quite obvious you have absolutely no scientific support but you can't understand what you're posting to even begin to comprehend your error. Because you rely on the words of others and not your own understanding there is no debate to be had, all it is is you posting your links, copying random quotes and otherwise using fallacy to make your point. When the explanations of your words are provided by others you reject them offhandedly as being wrong despite not possessing the real understanding to legitimately demonstrate this.
As such those types of strategies are non strategies and if you engage in them with me I will consider your argument conceded due to your ignorance of the subject.
As for the length of my evolution post, that is only scratching the surface of the amount of evidence I can bring to bear. There is literally hundreds if not thousands of pages I could write on the subject. Because there is a forum limit to the length of posts which I understand if you need to make a second post because you've hit such a limit I'll count it as one. Otherwise this debate will be exhaustive, cover a vast variety of topics and require a significant depth of understanding on your part. I am a med student, a professional debator and a politician, all I can say is good
my missing response
you have indeed avoided debating me creation vs evolution a few years back. I tried and you declined.
you say
" Now you're pulling a delay tactic for no apparent reason other than a hypothetical claim you're engaged in other debates. I would suggest you do not make a challenge or accept a challenge if you are not available to actually act on it"
i am 100% wanting to act on it, usually when i set up 1v1 their is a week or two to time to set rules etc.
you claim im in no other debate like i am somehow scared of your post,or that you bring something new that has never been seen before, i enjoy the confidence, but that does not equal truth. For debated i am curentley on.
responding to common objections to bible
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...tions-to-bible
Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...vironmentalism
Jordan vs Bird who was better?
https://www.2ksports.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24
you will see i post regularly on all these at same time, i also started these first so they have priority, when i asked to debate you its because i want to, that does not mean stop life and do it know forget all other posts.
your second paragraphs should make you want to debate me,that means it should be easy and you can call me out on it. If you try to get out of this your name will remain on the refused to accept my debate offer in fight club.
that is my whole point, we could both do pages and pages of stuff,than it really turns into who can type more and who has more time at hand. That is why i suggest we limit the topic to main areas to discuss every debate i have been in the op is the shortest, the responses get longer and longer and bring in new stuff, that is why i suggest smaller specific op's with no new stuff after op, only responses to op.
i like this very much
" I am a med student, a professional debator and a politician, all I can say is good luck."
this does get me excited, i love overconfidence and, perhaps maybe someone who can respond to me?.
his next
I will not limit the points I use OP or non. That is not up for negotiation. I don't really care about the rest of this response as it's merely bluster.
me
than you should have no problem waiting,how many points do you plan to make?have you ever debated on forum were everything you post is responded to?do you not know how long it gets? they often come to nothing when not direct in debates. I am 100% ok with it i guess,but cant we agree on like 10 point each?instead of throwing books of material at each other?.
me
just letting you know i am starting to close down other threads.
post 165
i am getting ready for a 1v1 so tonight will likely be my last night posting on this thread.Maybe someone else can bring up the cause lol.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...entalism/page6
me
one thing i was thinking was we must agree to add no more arguments/evidences to the case we make on op after the op has been made. The rest should be responding back and fourth on the stuff we already brought up on op's, agreed?.
him
Feel free, but I will be introducing new evidence and new points in every post. I will not limit my debate.
me
I was thinking, what about debating this?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-to-Evolution
debate title elfudes guide to evolution debate.
me
ok let me put it this way, will you debate me on the info you presented on your other threads op. With no new info?. I am trying to find reasonable debate to do with you that is not just points made/refuted add more etc etc I have done many of those.
or maybe i noticed on your profile you said this
Religious Attitude: Religion is the antithesis of evidence based logic and conceited in it's claim of truth. Against all faith based reasoning
would you debate
"evolution is is the antithesis of evidence based logic and conceited in it's claim of truth. Against all evolution based reasoning"
him
yes we can bring
new information into the debate at will. We are debating the subject of evolution, it would be foolish to believe all of the evidence related to that could be posted in a single post.
me
so you wish to have a typing match, who can type more?. You trying to back out of a debate?
me
just wondering,have you ever seen such a debate in your life?you claim to be professorial debater, if so could you name me such a debate you have seen in academia anywhere?. A debate like that would never end,as their is always new info coming in and books apone books written already for evidence for creation and evolution. I can take this no other way than you not accepting a debate, how would you expect it to end?,from either side?. What if we were to have a page limit? than i may be ok with that.
him
This is hilarious. It seems like it is you trying to back out of the debate. The challenge was debating evolution, there's no possible way to bring up every relevant point to the debate in a single post. Thus the only person limiting the points to the OP would benefit is you. I'm not about to limit legitimate information because you're lazy. I will debate evolution, however I will do so while not recognizing this stupid rule. You accepted the challenge, you have accepted the rules. You can either create your OP bringing your points against evolution and why creationism is a better choice or you can back out of the debate. Why something as simple as not limiting the points would give you pause I'm not entirely sure, can't debate something on equal terms?
me
ok let me put it this way, will you debate me on the info you presented on your other threads op. With no new info?. I am trying to find reasonable debate to do with you that is not just points made/refuted add more etc etc I have done many of those.
him
The argument is cut and dry. Evolution vs Creationism. In order to defeat evolution you must not only detract from evolution, but also propose an alternate and attempt to support that alternate via the rules of debate, logic and reasoning. I've explained to you the rules under which such a debate will operate. If you are not satisfied with this, then you are more than welcome to avoid debating. If you don't debate it only says something about you, and like I said, the only two reasons to not debate are laziness or ignorance. Frankly I'm inclined to believe you suffer from the second one but then again, only by debating could you prove me wrong.
Good luck.
me
tell me one debate that allows all the info for a subject to be presented?that debate would never end. I am 100% for equal terms,limited equal terms. Its not like a op on this forum cannot hit the major points to make a case for something.
if it is ignorance on my part than why not just make all the great evidence that you have that no evolutionist in the world is aware of that can show it true or creation false?. I do not have all the
time in the world, this forum i use really only for 1v1. I have family,work,life. I do not live on a forum. i am 100% wanting and willing to debate anything you present, after all it is you that gets to put any info in op you want. The fact you dont feel you cant highlight major common evidence for evolution to me is amazing, have you ever even read a book [not even a debate] on evolution that presents all the evidence for evolution? no but they disuse certain subjects to varying degrees. That and i think its clear your unaware of how long responses get in a debate of this nature. If your willing to set a page limit than i am 100% ok with this.
again,the reason i posted was to trey and limit/control the size/time of debate, that you assume it ignorance makes me wonder why not debate? since any info you put out i wont be able to respond to.why if its ignorance would the size matter? are you saying i am ignorant up until a certain amount of material?
are you willing to set page limit/material presented limit?points made limit?
him
him
There's a good reason why the debate with evolution has ended with academia long ago. The evidence is simply overwhelming. No public or professional debate limits the information the debators can use, only the time they can spend on presenting that information. Since time is not a factor, with an online forum and these debates happen over the course of weeks such a limit would be inappropriate.
As far as me avoiding a debate that is hilarious. Keep telling yourself that I couldn't care less. If you want to pretend I'm avoiding the debate feel free to do so. Like I've said, the only reason to hold back on making your OP is because you're lazy or you're ignorant. I am not limiting pages or points or information. I will debate the topic if you ever do actually make an OP.
me
to me its no different than declining the debate. I am 100% ok with having time limit as well say 3-4 weeks. I dont think you realized how long your debate would last.