(January 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The same regurgitated shit that they have tossed up many times before.
Hi, Minimalist,
I hope that your New Year is off to a great start. I realize the rules here allow people to use profanity to describe others' posts’ content. Merely asserting that the information I supplied is “regurgitated shit” or “horseshit” does not count as a legitimate rebuttal, though. I would like to give you an opportunity to support these claims.
I respectfully invite you to join me in a formal debate online regarding Jesus’s existence (We do not necessarily need to debate on Atheist Forums. We could debate on some other forum if you prefer, or in case Atheist Forums moderators would object to limiting a formal online debate to two debaters.). By Jesus I mean: a Jewish man who existed sometime in the first century C.E. who was crucified. Here is the proposed format:
1. Each debater introduces himself and makes his initial case.
2. Each debater posts a rebuttal to his opponent’s opening post.
3. Each debater posts one rebuttal to the other’s first rebuttal post.
4. Each debater supplies a closing argument.
This format will hopefully ensure that each debater’s time is not wasted and will assist each one in maintaining their focus.
Regarding behavioral guidelines:
1. Each debater must cite his sources.
2. Neither debater will commit ad hominen fallacies by calling the other one names.
3. Neither debater will use an “argument from hyperlink” (posting a link to a web page or entire web site as their only form of “rebuttal” to the other’s argumentation). In fact, at least one online debate forum I am aware of bans people if they persistently utilize an “argument from hyperlink.” The moderators’ reasoning is that participants should be able to craft their own arguments and be capable of defending them.
I shall look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards,
Fpvpilot