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

[Huggy Bear]

As noted, Khem never addressed what you were saying, period, so there was no debate.  (Even if he had, you split on the two, so it doesn't gain you anything.)

He did address it, he just didn't address it any further after he realized he was about to get that work. At some point one learns to 'stfu'.

Khem's reponse to my "original Hebrews were black" comment:

---

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?

---

And if you had an objection to the original terms of the debate, why did you ask if I was sure that I wanted to proceed on it?  You're disproving your own point.

What I said was:

You sure that's what you want?

That question is two-fold.

The first being, 'do you seriously want to discuss 5 years worth of posts?'

the second being 'do you really want to have this discussion in the peanut gallery thread?"

That QUESTION is in no way an answer in the AFFIRMATIVE.

We all know that if I just started posting 5 years worth of debates in the peanut gallery thread, I would have gotten ALL the blame.

But since YOU started it with this post

---

You sure that's what you want?

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

---

I was more than happy to play along because those terms were more feasible.

As to whether Khem won half of his arguments, I really couldn't care.  Khem makes some stupid arguments.  He fails to push home some of the others.  That's irrelevant to your larger point which you haven't abetted anyway.

*emphasis mine*
My larger point was, the guy whom YOU just described was voted best debater... You already acknowledged that I won at least 3 points, you can't reference any Khem won, so by definition....

Also my original post in response to Fireball

So if the forums best debater by popular consensus has to constantly be educated by a 'vegetable', you're basically saying that he's dumber than a vegetable, and seeing how he's the forums best (atheist), what does that say about you?

That was the only point I was trying to make...

And finally, if you're depending on an inaccurate count of the debates you've had with Khem, then you haven't actually shown that you consistently schooled him.

To "school" means to "educate", I'll post my quote again:

---

So if the forums best debater by popular consensus has to constantly be educated by a 'vegetable', you're basically saying that he's dumber than a vegetable, and seeing how he's the forums best (atheist), what does that say about you?

---

Did I not educate Khem on how bees reproduce?

Did I not educate Khem on the difference between "head stone" and "headstone"?

Did I not educate Khem on how DNA testing works? ( if you'd like me to post that example, I'm more than willing)

Then there the whole government of Denmark being secular thing which I corrected lots of people here about, not sure if Khem was in that debate, but I'm sure he learned along with the rest of you.

BTW the 4 example I gave ARE indisputable.

So, thanks for the interesting graphics, but at this point you're simply whining about terms that you agreed to and claim that you've consistently schooled Khem without indisputable evidence that you have done so.  We already knew that you had a high opinion of yourself, the challenge was to prove it was justified.  Not proving what you originally claimed but something else entirely doesn't validate your original claim.

*emphasis mine*

I think I've shown both of the point to be false, see above...

At this point you're simply being the weaseling, pettifogging Dunning-Kruger that you've always been.  You're stronger than some on tactics, if that offers you consolation, so be it.   It does not negate the chicanery, pettifoggery and irrelevance of you in this and other arenas.

(And the fact that you still don't understand the meaning of indisputable evidence is just the cherry on the top.)

(If you want to claim that you succeeded in fulfilling a challenge which doesn't show that you consistently school Khem, I'm willing to concede that you have indeed not shown that you consistently school him.)

*emphasis mine*

The tactic I employed I took from YOUR book sweetie...

You accused me one time of moving the goalposts based purely on YOU trying to argue semantics.

(Thanks for providing the link BTW)
https://atheistforums.org/thread-45331-p...pid1399771

---

Damnit Huggy.  Just when I was getting used to the goalposts being where they were.

what goal post did I move?

From essential role to important role.  Not to mention that you provided a loaded interpretation of what the authors meant by important.

An ecosystem's health refers to its ability to generate new life in a cycle.  That this cycle doesn't necessarily include this or that organism doesn't mean the ecosystem isn't generating new life.  Ecosystems are defined by the life they contain.  It's mere semantics to say that an ecosystem is worse off for the absence of this or that species.  An important consumer isn't necessarily essential to an ecosystem.

You're the one arguing semantics. I never used the term 'essential'.

I don't think you guys get what the OP is saying. He's not talking about what you personally feel is important, I believe he's talking about your place in the overall cosmos.

We recognize that in nature all creatures / organisms are important to their environment which is why we refer to it as a system, everything has its role to play in the overall scheme of things; everything except humans.

---

So if changing 'essential' to 'important' (which I didn't do)is moving the goal posts by your own definition, then isn't changing 'two' to 'half' moving the goalpost also?

---

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

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.

---