[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 06:12 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 05:34 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Reasonable according to whom - 3 billion Christians who dont want to risk going to hell?
You're way off with that number. There are actually only about 2.1 billion Christians world-wide.
+1 point for correcting his English in the quote.

Edit: never mind. Read the wrong sentence. Keep the point though. Free of charge.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(15-01-2013 05:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 04:51 PM)kineo Wrote:  That's wonderful for you, and I don't aim to convince you otherwise....

[snipped all the stuff that wasnt trying to convince me of anything]

...I think that your argument is lacking in any real substance.

Yes, I didnt need to include any substance because I was merely saying the same about atheist/skeptics as you were saying about theist/believers.
If we are gonna sit here and call each others perception of reality wilfully or inadvertently distorted there's no need for substance.

It's a bit like the following nil-all-draw;

Atheist : You guys are afraid of death so you invent a religion which includes the afterlife.

Christian : You guys are afraid there might be an afterlife when you die so you invent a religion which has no afterlife....(in order to live like theres no tomorrow).

Every. Damn. Time.

[Image: o92sl.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like kineo's post
15-01-2013, 07:47 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(15-01-2013 05:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 04:51 PM)kineo Wrote:  That's wonderful for you, and I don't aim to convince you otherwise....

[snipped all the stuff that wasnt trying to convince me of anything]

...I think that your argument is lacking in any real substance.

Yes, I didnt need to include any substance because I was merely saying the same about atheist/skeptics as you were saying about theist/believers.
If we are gonna sit here and call each others perception of reality wilfully or inadvertently distorted there's no need for substance.

It's a bit like the following nil-all-draw;

Atheist : You guys are afraid of death so you invent a religion which includes the afterlife.

Christian : You guys are afraid there might be an afterlife when you die so you invent a religion which has no afterlife....(in order to live like theres no tomorrow).
Oh hey, false assumptions.

First, you assumed that atheism is a religion. No, it isn't, we've all seen that countless times. Atheism, at it's base is a lack of theism; the only defining or required trait to call oneself an atheist is that one has no god, either through rejecting or denying the existence of gods, for whatever reason an individual does so choose; it cannot be accurately defined as a religion due to it's lack of any sort of faith, worship or doctrinal basis.

Next you assume people created the atheistic position so they could live;
Quote: (in order to live like there's no tomorrow).
Well that is at fault as well. Atheists have countless varying lifestyles and personalities, some are reckless, some are not. It is near impossible to be accurate or to answer when painting with as broad a stroke as you do. If you were trying to imply we live with no rules, that is simply a falsehood, with no motivating evidence or reasoning behind it, at least none that ends up in a defensible position.

As such, to avoid making a generalisation fallacy as you did, I ask you to specify your intended message with that statement so that I may make a response with reasonable topic<->reply accuracy.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
15-01-2013, 09:32 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Can't say I'm surprised, seeing as how Lion IRC hasn't responded to my own challenges since page 11, other than to say 'wikipedia lol' as if that was some sort of valid argument.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
All of Lion IRC excuses for why he's not debating are hollow when considering he can pick his own topic of debate, choose his opponent, and set the parameters of the debate.

Instead, he's just going in a circle as to why he won't debate A2 and A2's selected topic.

He's perfectly content with letting A2's topic sit until the last minute, make up a lame excuse as to why he can't debate, and the brag about how people won't debate him; while simultaneously complaining that his opponents are being disingenuous about the style of debate that he wants to participate in.

This is kindergarten level trolling.

I mean, Lion IRC, there is no shame in saying, "Sorry, I don't want to debate you." Or, saying, "Sorry, I'm not smart enough in that subject/ill-equipped for that topic of debate." There isn't a thing wrong with this.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you can't prove something or saying "I don't know". These are all valid, respectable answers.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
15-01-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 09:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Can't say I'm surprised, seeing as how Lion IRC hasn't responded to my own challenges since page 11, other than to say 'wikipedia lol' as if that was some sort of valid argument.

Sorry, I didnt see anything I thought was a challenge.
Am I supposed to respond to every single opinion I read.
On which of your points am I supposed to respond?



+1 point to the first anal-retentive spelling nazi who can identify every singul wun of my speeling errers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 09:49 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 09:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Can't say I'm surprised, seeing as how Lion IRC hasn't responded to my own challenges since page 11, other than to say 'wikipedia lol' as if that was some sort of valid argument.

Sorry, I didnt see anything I thought was a challenge.
Am I supposed to respond to every single opinion I read.
On which of your points am I supposed to respond?



+1 point to the first anal-retentive spelling nazi who can identify every singul wun of my speeling errers.
Definitely troll behavior.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Nah, anal-retentive, off-topic, spelling nazis arent trolls, they are just bored.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 09:52 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Nah, anal-retentive spelling nazis arent trolls, just bored.
So, Kitten - mind if I call you kitten? I love giving nicknames to people who act the way you do.

So, Kitten, tell me, are you going to wait till the last minute and then reply to A2's boxing ring thread? Or are you just going to let the time expire?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2013 10:24 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Heres an example of how I think the terms of a debate challenge should be defined.

Topic - That Biblical Christianity has been an overall nett benefit to human kind since its foundation.

Scope - Theologically distinct (Nicene) Christianity. ''Benefit'' includes life, liberty, happiness and the pursuit thereof including Christianity as a coping mechanism/placebo. Human kind = humans living or having lived since circa AD33. The winner(s) will be the side which best demonstrates a causal relationship/link between Christianity and the asserted overall nett benefit/detriment. (Eg. Isaac Newton was a Christian. Nazis were Christians.) Evidence for/against the proposition needs to derive from actual human history as opposed to hypotheticals. IOW - it is outside the scope of this debate to speculate about benefits which may have otherwise been realized if only...etc.etc.

Affirmative - Lion (IRC)
Negative - Pending. Can be a team if you want.


Format - Introduction of no more than 500 words each. 3 main (substantive) debate posts of up to 1500 words each excluding diagrams, tables, images, etc. (Videos specifically excluded from debate)
5 question Q&A interrogatory round prior to concluding remarks. Conclusion of no more than 500 words each. 3 day post turnaround (72 hours to submission deadline) from your opponent's last post.
Debate Mod to review and approve/address submitted posts within 24 hours of their submission. Debate thread locked between rounds. No edits.


Heres all we have so far in the boxing ring...

Topic - The Resurrection of Yeshua. (Chas called me an evasive arrogant ass for wanting Atothetheist to specify that this means the historical Jesus of Narareth and the biblical Resurrection account)

Scope - There is/is not logical and evidence based reason to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: