[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2013, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2013 10:26 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 09:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  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.

I actually DO want to debate this important topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 10:30 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 10:21 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I actually DO want to debate this important topic.

Prove it.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 10:33 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 - Maybe because you're blind? I have repeatedly challenged the presuppositions at the core of your belief structure, so you're either ignorant or not paying attention.

2 - Certainly not. But if you do respond, a reply that essentially says 'TL/DR Wikipedia lol' is not intellectual or a valid argument; it is childish.

3 - If you're going to dismiss everyone else's definition of 'empirical evidence', then you need to supply your own definition with supporting citation, so that we can get a consensus before moving forward. A debate on evidence is pointless if both sides can't agree on what the standard for evidence is.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-01-2013, 11:37 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2013 11:40 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 10:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 09:49 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  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 - Maybe because you're blind? I have repeatedly challenged the presuppositions at the core of your belief structure, so you're either ignorant or not paying attention.

No, you asserted an opinion (a belief) about someone elses belief.
I dont need to defend other peoples beliefs. And if you thought you were specifically referring to me, I didnt recognise the strawman you were attacking.

Quote:2 - Certainly not. But if you do respond, a reply that essentially says 'TL/DR Wikipedia lol' is not intellectual or a valid argument; it is childish.

Correct. It wasnt an attempt at argument at all - let alone valid argument. I was laughing at the irony.
Childish? Maybe, in your opinion. But that simply amplifies the point about irony.

Quote:3 - If you're going to dismiss everyone else's definition of 'empirical evidence', then you need to supply your own definition with supporting citation...

See, here's another stawman. I didnt dismiss everyone elses definition. On the contrary, I wanted to include them and draw attention to the fact that some/many skeptics are so entrenched in naturalism and scientism that even if they were presented with a ''water-into-wine'' type miracle (which our current scientific knowledge couldnt explain,) and even if Jesus did it on command over and over and over again, such a skeptic would STILL refuse to believe their own eyes, ears, smell, taste....

hmmm, that is some excellent wine Jesus!!! How do you do it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 11:42 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(15-01-2013 10:30 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(15-01-2013 10:21 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I actually DO want to debate this important topic.

Prove it.
I will. Dont you worry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
I'm not sure if Atothetheist is keen on the debate being formalised to this degree but............

Topic - There is no logical and/or evidence-based reason to believe in the Resurrection of Yeshua.

Affirmative - Atothetheist (Challenger)

Negatitive - Lion IRC

Scope - Yeshua means the historical Jesus Of Nazareth. The Resurrection event referred to is the one accepted as being that mentioned in the Holy bible. Eg. Luke 24:14 Both debate contestants accept, in varying degree,) the historicity of the person Jesus, whereas the affirmative side is contesting the truth/historicity of Jesus' actual post-death Resurrection and asserting a proposition that there is no logical and evidence-based reason to believe same. The successful debate contestant will be the one that most effectively persuades the audience for or against the proposition. (Is there any evidence or logical basis to believe that it happened.) Both sides will argue the plausibility or otherwise of this biblical claim using any sources they deem sufficiently persuasive to make their respective case.

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) Citations where provided are to be listed separately at the end of each post. There shall be a 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. Failure to submit a debate post to the Moderator by the specified deadline results in a forfeit unless the opposing contestant agrees to a time extension request. The affirmative side will make the opening post. Notwithstanding the prevailing rules of the Forum in general, Moderation of the debate is limited to ensuring that the posts comply with the agreed format described here. Mutual good will and civil dialogue is assumed and expected from all participants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lion IRC's post
16-01-2013, 01:04 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
[Image: 33460657.jpg]

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(16-01-2013 12:50 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I'm not sure if Atothetheist is keen on the debate being formalised to this degree but............

Topic - There is no logical and/or evidence-based reason to believe in the Resurrection of Yeshua.

Affirmative - Atothetheist (Challenger)

Negatitive - Lion IRC

Scope - Yeshua means the historical Jesus Of Nazareth. The Resurrection event referred to is the one accepted as being that mentioned in the Holy bible. Eg. Luke 24:14 Both debate contestants accept, in varying degree,) the historicity of the person Jesus, whereas the affirmative side is contesting the truth/historicity of Jesus' actual post-death Resurrection and asserting a proposition that there is no logical and evidence-based reason to believe same. The successful debate contestant will be the one that most effectively persuades the audience for or against the proposition. (Is there any evidence or logical basis to believe that it happened.) Both sides will argue the plausibility or otherwise of this biblical claim using any sources they deem sufficiently persuasive to make their respective case.

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) Citations where provided are to be listed separately at the end of each post. There shall be a 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. Failure to submit a debate post to the Moderator by the specified deadline results in a forfeit unless the opposing contestant agrees to a time extension request. The affirmative side will make the opening post. Notwithstanding the prevailing rules of the Forum in general, Moderation of the debate is limited to ensuring that the posts comply with the agreed format described here. Mutual good will and civil dialogue is assumed and expected from all participants.
Why are you not posting this in the boxing ring thread so that an agreement on the parameters can be met with A2?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
16-01-2013, 01:34 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Because fuck logic, that's why.

Drinking Beverage

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2013, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2013 04:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
If Jebus existed, he would have been one of many said to have risen, and done miracles. In a culture in which "magic" was ubiquitous, ANY claim must be empirically verified. There is not a shred of evidence Jebus rose from the dead. If he did, why were none of the others documented, why did no one recognize him, why were they afraid of him in the zombie invasion ? Why was the temple curtain not documented as torn by any Jewish historian ? Why were no "split rocks" ever found ? Why did no Roman authority ever say anything about either Jebus rising, OR the multitude of zombies (in Matthew). Why did the original Gospel of Mark have no resurrection ? Sorry It's a crock of shit. And, BTW, the gospels were/are faith documents, by believers for believers to remind themselves what they already believed. They are in no way "historical" documents.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: