RE: Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement.
December 29, 2016 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2016 at 12:57 pm by Drich.)
(December 28, 2016 at 3:16 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:(December 28, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Drich Wrote: Meh..
formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.
Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.
You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.
RUN, RUN, RUN AWAY DRICH! You could no more debate Jehanne's topic of your primitive faith, then you could heal the sick through prayer!
Deep, deep, down, you realize that you will NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER be able to defend your indefensible and primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, EVER!
So what does the chicken pseudo-christian like you have to do? Yes, they come up with child-like lame excuses like you've done to try and save face and further embarrassment!
Hows it feel when you cannot defend your primitive faith, and especially when your serial killer Jesus' inspired word states with specificity that you are to defend it?!
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Yet another pseudo-christian bites the dust to science, logic, reason, and biblical axioms, and is easily OWNED by the Atheist! LOL!
m
The content of the rebuttals and the counter points are all there sport. All you need do now is pick up the ball and run with it. Show me how 'great thou art.'
The only thing missing to my rebuttal statement is the promise I will stick to structured debate. Again where following the rules of the debate structure take precedent over the content of the debate.
If you truly think you are smart enough to 'own' what others all have tried and failed then please Show me. Demonstrate this ownership. stop talking about it and shut me up with your great and powerful logic...
You know kinda what I did with the OP when I went line by line and not only refuted her analysis of 'science/aliens' but as religion, and God as well.
What you are doing is taking a victory lap before you or the 'op' has even entered the race.
(December 28, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(December 28, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Drich Wrote: Meh..
formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.
Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.
You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.
This is just nonsense. What do you think that the entire legal system of the Western World is about? It is an adversarial relationship where one litigant debates another nearly always in writing which is overseen by a referee (that is, a judge). Lawyers, by the way, do not spend most of their time in court; they are at their desks working on legal documents and/or doing legal research (which is usually gets dumped on the paras.)
Do innocent people go to Jail because certain evidences are with held because it was not collected or obtained properly/In accordance to the 'formal legal debate structure?' Is the opposite true? Are guilty people ever release because the rules to this debate structure not observed? Is this a very rare occurrence or is this happening everyday in our judicial structure?
I'm not asking for an explanation as to why I am looking for a yes or no in all three instances.
Then By what was just demonstrated (Three yes-es to my three questions) then on can conclude that your legal debate structure prizes or hold the debate structure itself over the rightful outcome of said debate.
Which somehow does not make sense to you.
