My Debating Tactic

[Gilgamesh]

I prefer Zyzz's bodybuilding bible.

[FallentoReason]

For all my friends here (Christian and Atheists alike), I want to make something clear from my side. I usually don't use references from our Good Book - Bible while debating here. Reason for this is that I don't want to see myself trying to proselytize others. It's against the rules here, I suppose and I want to really discuss things within the confines of the rules. That being said, you all do realize that the True Word of God has stood the test of time so in rare cases, I may need to reference the Good Book.

The Traditions of the Bible regarding authorship has never been proven and never will. You expect me to believe Moses wrote about his own death in Deuteronomy 34?

Christianity and every other religion needs to be stopped. The lunacy has got to end.

[Christian]

Thank you Mister Sir Poe, but I prefer the honorific 'miss'.

EDIT: Kayenneh-san, Kay-kun or Kay-chan are also acceptable

Ops, sorry Madam Kayenneh

[Something completely different]

What the fuck is going on here?

[Kayenneh]

What the fuck is going on here?

A Poe on the move.

---

Ops, sorry Madam Kayenneh

Madmoiselle, s'il vous plait!

[Aardverk]

Come on Christian, move along now, your 'Debating tactic' is rapidly getting boring.

Some of us are dying to hear why you think The Bible is the 'word of Jesus Christ' (even the OT? - tell that one to the Jews!) and that it has 'stood the test of time' (!).

P.S. I think you will find that most people here understand all about Emperor Constantine and the council at Nicea and the origin of the various documents and the disputes before during and after the Nicene creed etc etc - so make sure you are well up to speed before you start or you may embarrass yourself.

[Something completely different]

Is there even such a thing as having a debating tactic?

When I enter a debate I enter it with a load of facts to prove my point. If the oponent has better facts, I will be convinced by those.

Having a tactic would require from me that I ignore that and simply enter with the purpose of gaining "victory" instead of gaining knowlege or the solving of a matter.

[Angrboda]

Is there even such a thing as having a debating tactic?

When I enter a debate I enter it with a load of facts to prove my point. If the oponent has better facts, I will be convinced by those.

Having a tactic would require from me that I ignore that and simply enter with the purpose of gaining "victory" instead of gaining knowlege or the solving of a matter.

I'm inclined to refashion Ayn Rand's thoughts on philosophy and suggest that if you do not choose your strategy and tactics in a conflict, negotiation or debate, it doesn't mean you don't have a strategy or tactic, it just means that the ones you do have are chosen by accident, and without purpose or design. Ultimately I'd say it makes you less effective. If you care about the issues you discuss, you should care about the tactics and strategy which will make you an effective advocate.

[Something completely different]

The thing is, when I am confronted with an issue, I dont get to having my view on that issue through debate.


But through research.

[paulpablo]

I didnt even realise there was a rule against preaching or using bible verses, it makes sense to me if youre going to argue about the bible to use bible verses, several atheist and muslim arguments against christianity are based on bible verses anyway.