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

[Angrboda]

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?

---

If you think that comment is any indication that Khem was addressing what you claim was the specific issue you believe was under contention, whether there were black Christians before 1400, then you must be one of them mentalist whatchamacallits. No, Huggy, you claimed that the original Hebrews were black and he specifically asked who told you "that" referring to the claim that the original Hebrews were black, not that there were no black Christians before 1400. It's quite explicit.

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

---

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.

You asked if that's what I wanted, and I affirmed and then elaborated. That's how things work. My elaboration wasn't an independent request, but a comment on that original want. Now you're just trying to weasel out of having agreed to it with absurd bullshit. Well, fine. Have it your way. You've argued that when I referred to "two" of the "following debates" that I was referring to the page which those links linked to. I went back and looked and there wasn't sufficient material on those pages to provide indisputable evidence that you had won two of "those" debates with Khem, so even according to your own criteria you failed. Suck them lemons.

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....

I already had disputed your original point. Yes you did have that as your original point. Whether that point was sound or not was never resolved in any fashion. What I directly responded to was that you claimed that you had indisputable evidence (presumably of a quality similar to the two examples you had already referenced) and that you were not a Dunning-Kruger. I proposed a test of those propositions, you asked if that was what I wanted, I affirmed and away we went. I don't agree with your larger point, nor does there appear to be indisputable evidence to the point. You've pointed out that Khem made a couple of stupid arguments. If you want to discuss that instead, we can, but to say that you've proved your larger point when you haven't proved the test of it according to my terms, you haven't proved the test of it according to your own terms, and we haven't discussed it beyond the terms of the challenge is just assuming it because it's something you believe. Yes, you do well in debates. Yes, sometimes Khem does horrible in debates. For what it's worth, I wouldn't describe you as a vegetable. It was neither my interest nor my intent to show that Khem won a lot of debates. And I'll tell you a dirty little secret if you promise not to spread it to anyone else, I didn't vote for Khem as best debater.

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...

I don't think you've shown you "constantly" do anything with regard to Khem, whether that's school, educate, or win debates. As already noted, I don't think you're a vegetable, so if that's your only point, then I happily concede. You don't have to be a vegetable to be a Dunning-Kruger, however, so that one is outstanding. I would say you lack insight in some ways regarding the effectiveness of your debates on this forum. I'm sure we all do, but yours seems particularly acute, such as in this debate when you choose to whine about technicalities over and against proving your larger point. And I'm not in any sense saying that I've demonstrated that you are a Dunning-Kruger, either, because I haven't. Just that there are issues there which are pertinent which wouldn't necessarily be pertinent to another debater.

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.

And here you are again arguing semantics and the meanings of words. It's this type of moronic "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is..." type arguments which has sullied your reputation, at least in my eyes. If you want to continue throwing good money after bad, I won't stop you. Only know that with this sort of argument you are undermining yourself and your credibility, not strengthening it. And no, the four examples aren't indisputable. Since you seem to have an idiosyncratic understanding of that term, let me rephrase it. You have not provided evidence for your other points which is as conclusive or as evidently correct as you had in the original two examples. That was what I meant by indisputable, and you didn't provide two additional examples. You claimed that Khem debated you on something he didn't actually debate you on (which would have split that into two debates if true, so isn't helpful). Second, you claim that someone acknowledged the Talmud as authoritative and so using the Talmud to prove your point was sufficient. It wasn't sufficient if that person was wrong about the Talmud being authoritative, but I can't find where Khem acknowledges the Talmud as authoritative either. If you have a link to a specific post where he does, please provide it. If someone besides Khem acknowledged it as authoritative then that's a moot point. Your other evidence for having schooled him is that he accepted your snake fucking hypothesis. At the time he was arguing a point much further down the line and was probably doing so simply to focus your discussion on the topic of his interest. Regardless, accepting your hypothesis isn't indisputable evidence either that you were right nor that you had schooled him. He didn't say why he had chosen to accept your hypothesis, so it's really proof of nothing.

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...

Given your debate tactics, I'm inclined to believe that you interpret things more literally than most. That probably also explains the strain of Christian belief you hold as well as the content of those beliefs. I was being loose with my words and making references to earlier conversations. I didn't see any need to repeat the terms of our challenge as preface to every discussion as to what you had or had not done. In this instance by "schooled" I meant that you had "consistently" (i.e. at least 50% of the time) indisputably shown that you were right and Khem was wrong (I believe the term I used was "won" the debates). My reference to your having schooled him was in the context of the challenge and a reference to that standard. That you can rip it out of that context, juxtapose it into a different context, and make a pointless semantic argument about it simply shows that everything I've been saying about your focus on chicanery, technicalities, semantics, and pettifoggery is true. So no, you're still just whining and engaging in pointless pettifoggery. No, you haven't shown both to be false. You have misinterpreted my comments on the second, as explained, and made a bullshit semantic argument of your usual sort which only goes to proving my larger point that you're something of a douche bag.

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.

---

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?
[hide]

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 don't know what your point is here. Was I mistaken in claiming that you had moved the goalposts in that one instance? Yes I was. The goalposts had indeed been moved, it just wasn't you who had moved them. (And that was hardly a semantic argument.) Does that prove some larger point, if so, you'll need to be more explicit, as I don't know what that larger point is. Did I perhaps misstate how many debates you needed to prove in order to acquit yourself of the challenge, I may have, but since I was simply providing a starting point for the conversation, that's a rather moot point. I don't think you're sufficiently stupid not to realize that two wrongs don't make a right. If I erred on that specific statement, then I erred. That alone does not justify the rest of your crap because that would be trying to prove that you had fairly done something using a standard that is unfair. That you still seem to not grasp that fundamental point is astounding. If you had some other point, then, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT IS!!!