[user split] Further Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such.

[Huggy Bear]

It is indisputable, as proven by other Jewish literature that states Eve 'copulated' with the serpent.

---

---

Again this is indisputable.

You seem to have some difficulty in coming to terms with what indisputable evidence means.  Regardless, I'll set that aside for the moment.

It's worth noting, as Wikipedia does, that not all Jews consider the Talmud authoritative.  If the Jews themselves dispute the authority of the Talmud, I think I'm on good ground calling it disputable.  Second, the Talmud has all sorts of crap and contrary opinions in it.  Not all of it is gold.  Among other things, it says, "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray."  I doubt you'd be willing to accept that as authoritative because if Jesus deceives, then he is not God.  Maybe if you'll deny that Jesus Christ is God, I'll take you more seriously.

But ultimately, the problem with quoting the Talmud is that the Talmud is exegesis and commentary on the bible, it is not an independent source of information in addition to the bible.  So ultimately, the Talmud suggests that, if the Talmudic opinion is to have any validity, must be cashed out in terms of the bible.  And as already pointed out, that argument isn't indisputable.

Moreover, the Talmudic entry you quote states that it was a rabbinic tradition.  It doesn't tell us how popular or how well received that tradition was, or whether it was authoritative.  You're assuming a lot of things that you need in evidence to consider that in any sense authoritative.  Aside from that, you simply have the opinion of some rabbis that Eve copulated with the snake without any actual reasons for their opinion.  That's as hollow an appeal to authority as it gets.

The Talmud was introduced as a reference by another member, not myself, and as such they had to accept it's conclusion.

As far as Khemikal goes, he conceded that point.

....................no..I accepted your snakeman hypothesis...remember?

You act like you don't see threads posted questioning why black people are Christians because Christianity is the supposed religion of their oppressors.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-24848.h...istians%22

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30187.h...istians%22

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55602.h...22black%22

That being said, let me spell it out for you...

*emphasis mine*

The above makes absolutely no sense if Christianity already existed in Africa 1500 years prior, so please stop with the dishonest tactics.

In the first place, that sentence doesn't actually claim that there were no Christians prior to then because it doesn't say that the religion of those who would enslave and oppress their children was different than their own, that's an implication you're imposing upon the text.  But it doesn't matter anyway.  Having examined the thread, and now knowing what you base your claim on, I come to a different conclusion.  You were arguing against the claim that there were no Christians in Africa prior to 1400.  Khem was arguing against the proposition that the original Hebrews were black.  You both were arguing about different things, so the two of you were talking past one another rather than having a debate.  So the only reasonable thing to do is to exclude both claims and the ensuing discussion, as no actual debate on those topics actually occurred.  If my count is correct, that leaves us with nine debates, of which you have indisputable evidence of winning three of them.  That's one-third so far, not half.

*emphasis mine*
Just going to make up rules as you go?

Khemikal never disputed it any further after I made my case, YOU"RE disputing it just now, and as such I should be able to present any evidence I like. What I did present to Khemikal was the fact the Joseph was married to an Egyptian woman, and had two children from which came the Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

---

---

Again, is this good enough for you?

You're still not understanding the meaning of indisputable evidence.  As to whether I'm making up rules by pointing out that arguments you make now are not material, that's absurd, and it's pathetic that I have to point this out to you.  Your claim was that you had indisputable evidence showing that you had schooled Khemikal consistently.  Had, past tense.  That you can present new arguments to strengthen a case you made then does not retroactively amend the historical record.  They would only count insofar as they seek to establish that an argument you made then is indisputable, and presenting new arguments doesn't do that.  Furthermore, you're no longer arguing with Khemikal, so any arguments you make with me are essentially irrelevant to your claims about your performance against Khem.  And finally, that you apparently feel the need to bring additional evidence is prima facie evidence that even you don't consider the arguments which you had made indisputable.

Anyway, as already noted, the debates in question never actually occurred, so it's a moot point.

Khem never addressed what I said therefore it was the end of the discussion on the subject. There were no further disagreements therefore there was no further evidence presented.

What are you talking about? The original Hebrews WERE black.

hahahahahahahahahahah,

I;m sorry, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Ahem. So, who told you that? Not one of those weird ass Black Hebrew Isrealite cultists, are you?

As you can see, khem clearly addressed what I said, so you're not weaseling your way out of this one...

so now you're going to count every tangent of the original discussion as a separate debate? Talk about moving the goalposts.

Answered below.

Here were your original terms...
*emphasis mine*

OR is a funny word isn't it?

No, that's not correct.  As anyone can see from examining that thread, my original terms were as follows:

All you're proving is that it is a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  But whatever.  Produce every debate you've ever had with Khem, and show that you've won at least half of them.  And not just in your judgement, but indisputably.

And your 'original' terms were beyond ridiculous... and as such didn't agree to those terms.

Let's see, you expect me to comb over 5 years worth of posts and show that I won half of the debates? Usually to win something you have to have at least one win over the opposition.

So.. you've already conceded that I've won 3 points, how about you showing Khem winning 4 or at the very least 3 points? That's fair isn't it?

So that's a no to both whether I'm moving the goalposts by counting any arguments of Khem and yours that I can find as well as a no to the complaint that my original terms only included arguments you present to me.  But there's more going on here that bears examination.

As is typical of you, having failed to prove your initial claim in its substance, you instead want to focus on technicalities and engage in pettifoggery to establish a win, even if it doesn't establish your original point.  You exhibit a slavish devotion to the letter of the law, even if it is at odds with the spirit of the law.  Let us say that I acquiesced to your demand that we abide by the second statement of the challenge, ignoring for the moment that your interpretation is incorrect.  Instead of proving that a fair assessment of all the arguments you've had with Khem showing that you have consistently schooled him, you would prefer to focus on a biased selection of his arguments which, because they don't include all his arguments, is not a fair assessment of your claim to have consistently schooled him.   That would be biting your nose off to spite your own face.  But far from being an exception, this is typical of you.  You regularly make your stand on the definition of words, specific interpretations, and other technicalities rather than aquitting the substance of your claims.  You engage in such chicanery and pettifoggery so regularly that it has almost completely undermined your credibility on this forum.  It's such that I think that "pyrrhic victory" should be your middle name.  You choose a cheap victory over a substantial win, thereby winning the battle but losing the war.

No ma'am, the links you provided didn't start at the beginning of those threads, they pointed to specific pages. therefore the only logical conclusion is that you wanted me to focus on those specific pages.

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  You're also technically wrong for the following reasons:

1. I said you had to prove half of "the following debates" and provided a list of links to threads.

Wrong, you said 'two' NOT 'half'

Sure. I'll start you off. Counting the two you've already claimed, you have to show indisputable evidence that you won at least two of the following debates, or produce additional debates that I've missed.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53040-page-13.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-45331-page-11.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53099-p...90358.html
https://atheistforums.org/post-1354255.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-41806-p...19791.html

*emphasis mine*
Last I checked, two is not half of five...
 

I nowhere indicated which specific debates were in those threads nor that each thread contained only one debate.  I simply referred to debates plural.  Additionally, because those threads ultimately link to all of the threads of the forum, arguably any thread on the forum is fair game as I didn't indicate that the debates were at the terminus of that link itself (and they indeed couldn't be, as a debate requires multiple posts, and a link can only unambiguously point to one post, if that).  Regardless, we haven't exceeded the scope of my original links, so considering anything within those threads as falling under the rubric of "the following debates" is fair game.

The Oxford English dictionary defines produce as "To bring forward or out, to present to view or notice; to show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use," by referencing those threads within which the arguments were made, you were unintentionally providing me access to the entire contents of that thread, whether unintentionally or not.  That you yourself interpret it as you intentionally making an issue of a specific argument, as opposed to simply "providing" a thread of multiple arguments for my consideration is an interpretation, which, much like many of your arguments, depends upon interpreting the meaning of that word in a specific way rather than another perfectly valid interpretation.

And, I explicitly said in that post that I was starting you off.  That seems to necessarily imply that the list and such I was making available would not necessarily in and of themselves conclude the argument, but only provide a jumping off point from which further elaboration could be provided, if justified.

But ultimately, these technical points are unnecessary because, as noted, they neither were my original terms, nor, if they were fulfilled, would they substantiate your original claim.

*emphasis mine*

Wow...

Those mental gymnastics are on point.