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

[Angrboda]

No, if you go back far enough, Khemikal was disputing that you had evidence that Eve fucked the serpent. If you interpret a certain passage one way, rather than another, then it's possible that Eve may have..... but you seem to have forgotten the indisputable part. Your argument, and the evidence for it, was far from indisputable. So, no.

It is indisputable, as proven by other Jewish literature that states Eve 'copulated' with the serpent.

---

Earlier in the thread you quoted the Babylonian Talmud as a source, and I quote:
*emphasis mine*

Since you clearly acknowledge the Talmud as an acceptable source, how about this passage from the website contained in your above post.

From the Yebamoth Tractate: http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_103.html

There is no ambiguity to the word "copulate", it means sexual intercourse.

*edit*
Forgot to provide link.

---

Again this is indisputable.

You seem to have some difficulty in coming to terms with what indisputable evidence means. Regardless, I'll set that aside for the moment.

It's worth noting, as Wikipedia does, that not all Jews consider the Talmud authoritative. If the Jews themselves dispute the authority of the Talmud, I think I'm on good ground calling it disputable. Second, the Talmud has all sorts of crap and contrary opinions in it. Not all of it is gold. Among other things, it says, "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray." I doubt you'd be willing to accept that as authoritative because if Jesus deceives, then he is not God. Maybe if you'll deny that Jesus Christ is God, I'll take you more seriously.

But ultimately, the problem with quoting the Talmud is that the Talmud is exegesis and commentary on the bible, it is not an independent source of information in addition to the bible. So ultimately, the Talmud suggests that, if the Talmudic opinion is to have any validity, must be cashed out in terms of the bible. And as already pointed out, that argument isn't indisputable.

Moreover, the Talmudic entry you quote states that it was a rabbinic tradition. It doesn't tell us how popular or how well received that tradition was, or whether it was authoritative. You're assuming a lot of things that you need in evidence to consider that in any sense authoritative. Aside from that, you simply have the opinion of some rabbis that Eve copulated with the snake without any actual reasons for their opinion. That's as hollow an appeal to authority as it gets.

No, as far as I can see, his original complaint was his wondering what 15th century Africans would think of modern day apologists, which you replied to by claiming that the original Hebrews were black. I've been through that entire thread and didn't see where he either made that claim, nor implied it. If you have a specific post, link me to it.

You act like you don't see threads posted questioning why black people are Christians because Christianity is the supposed religion of their oppressors.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-24848.h...istians%22

"White" Man asks "Black" Christians, "Are you really this stupid?"

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30187.h...istians%22

It doesn't make any sense to worship a god and or deity jesus that pretty much was the reason that your ancestors were enslaved and yet worship both of them like they are good.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55602.h...22black%22

How the black man embraced Christianity

That being said, let me spell it out for you...

You know...I sometimes wonder what some random w. african circa 1400 would think if I handed them a time machine, and they could watch their descendants become shoddy apologists for the religion of those who would enslave and oppress their own children for the next few subsequent centuries. Sad fucking state of affairs, if you ask me.

*emphasis mine*

The above makes absolutely no sense if Christianity already existed in Africa 1500 years prior, so please stop with the dishonest tactics.

In the first place, that sentence doesn't actually claim that there were no Christians prior to then because it doesn't say that the religion of those who would enslave and oppress their children was different than their own, that's an implication you're imposing upon the text. But it doesn't matter anyway. Having examined the thread, and now knowing what you base your claim on, I come to a different conclusion. You were arguing against the claim that there were no Christians in Africa prior to 1400. Khem was arguing against the proposition that the original Hebrews were black. You both were arguing about different things, so the two of you were talking past one another rather than having a debate. So the only reasonable thing to do is to exclude both claims and the ensuing discussion, as no actual debate on those topics actually occurred. If my count is correct, that leaves us with nine debates, of which you have indisputable evidence of winning three of them. That's one-third so far, not half.

Does the passage say they recognized Moses as an Egyptian by the color of his skin? No, it does not. They might have, that doesn't make it indisputable evidence. And you missed the note that I added after your reply. If you didn't present the Exodus passage in that thread, then it's irrelevant. This isn't a question of whether you can win a debate now, but whether you won a debate then. I didn't specifically look for it, so if you did provide the Exodus passage in that thread, please link to it.

*emphasis mine*
Just going to make up rules as you go?

Khemikal never disputed it any further after I made my case, YOU"RE disputing it just now, and as such I should be able to present any evidence I like. What I did present to Khemikal was the fact the Joseph was married to an Egyptian woman, and had two children from which came the Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

---

The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, were descendants of sons of Joseph who was married to an Egyptian, meaning that they had Egyptian heritage.

---

Again, is this good enough for you?

You're still not understanding the meaning of indisputable evidence. As to whether I'm making up rules by pointing out that arguments you make now are not material, that's absurd, and it's pathetic that I have to point this out to you. Your claim was that you had indisputable evidence showing that you had schooled Khemikal consistently. Had, past tense. That you can present new arguments to strengthen a case you made then does not retroactively amend the historical record. They would only count insofar as they seek to establish that an argument you made then is indisputable, and presenting new arguments doesn't do that. Furthermore, you're no longer arguing with Khemikal, so any arguments you make with me are essentially irrelevant to your claims about your performance against Khem. And finally, that you apparently feel the need to bring additional evidence is prima facie evidence that even you don't consider the arguments which you had made indisputable.

Anyway, as already noted, the debates in question never actually occurred, so it's a moot point.

And going back over that thread, I spot an additional argument, where you claimed that the people in your photo of KKK cross burnings the men in question weren't Christian, for which your evidence was the "you shall know them by their fruits" passage. Far from indisputable. That brings the total of debates to ten, and you've got three so far. Still two remaining. (Or, if you show that Khem did claim there were no Christians in Africa prior to the slave trade, that would bring the total debates to eleven, out of which you'll have shown four, leaving, once again, two remaining to be demonstrated with indisputable evidence. You seem to be doing little more than treading water at this point.)

so now you're going to count every tangent of the original discussion as a separate debate? Talk about moving the goalposts.

Answered below.

Here were your original terms...

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

*emphasis mine*

OR is a funny word isn't it?

No, that's not correct. As anyone can see from examining that thread, my original terms were as follows:

All you're proving is that it is a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect. But whatever. Produce every debate you've ever had with Khem, and show that you've won at least half of them. And not just in your judgement, but indisputably.

So that's a no to both whether I'm moving the goalposts by counting any arguments of Khem and yours that I can find as well as a no to the complaint that my original terms only included arguments you present to me. But there's more going on here that bears examination.

As is typical of you, having failed to prove your initial claim in its substance, you instead want to focus on technicalities and engage in pettifoggery to establish a win, even if it doesn't establish your original point. You exhibit a slavish devotion to the letter of the law, even if it is at odds with the spirit of the law. Let us say that I acquiesced to your demand that we abide by the second statement of the challenge, ignoring for the moment that your interpretation is incorrect. Instead of proving that a fair assessment of all the arguments you've had with Khem showing that you have consistently schooled him, you would prefer to focus on a biased selection of his arguments which, because they don't include all his arguments, is not a fair assessment of your claim to have consistently schooled him. That would be biting your nose off to spite your own face. But far from being an exception, this is typical of you. You regularly make your stand on the definition of words, specific interpretations, and other technicalities rather than aquitting the substance of your claims. You engage in such chicanery and pettifoggery so regularly that it has almost completely undermined your credibility on this forum. It's such that I think that "pyrrhic victory" should be your middle name. You choose a cheap victory over a substantial win, thereby winning the battle but losing the war.

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. I nowhere indicated which specific debates were in those threads nor that each thread contained only one debate. I simply referred to debates plural. Additionally, because those threads ultimately link to all of the threads of the forum, arguably any thread on the forum is fair game as I didn't indicate that the debates were at the terminus of that link itself (and they indeed couldn't be, as a debate requires multiple posts, and a link can only unambiguously point to one post, if that). Regardless, we haven't exceeded the scope of my original links, so considering anything within those threads as falling under the rubric of "the following debates" is fair game.
   
2. The Oxford English dictionary defines produce as "To bring forward or out, to present to view or notice; to show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use," by referencing those threads within which the arguments were made, you were unintentionally providing me access to the entire contents of that thread, whether unintentionally or not. That you yourself interpret it as you intentionally making an issue of a specific argument, as opposed to simply "providing" a thread of multiple arguments for my consideration is an interpretation, which, much like many of your arguments, depends upon interpreting the meaning of that word in a specific way rather than another perfectly valid interpretation.
   
3. And, I explicitly said in that post that I was starting you off. That seems to necessarily imply that the list and such I was making available would not necessarily in and of themselves conclude the argument, but only provide a jumping off point from which further elaboration could be provided, if justified.

But ultimately, these technical points are unnecessary because, as noted, they neither were my original terms, nor, if they were fulfilled, would they substantiate your original claim.

[Foxaèr]

[Joods]

I knew this would get split.

[Huggy Bear]

It is indisputable, as proven by other Jewish literature that states Eve 'copulated' with the serpent.

---

---

Again this is indisputable.

You seem to have some difficulty in coming to terms with what indisputable evidence means.  Regardless, I'll set that aside for the moment.

It's worth noting, as Wikipedia does, that not all Jews consider the Talmud authoritative.  If the Jews themselves dispute the authority of the Talmud, I think I'm on good ground calling it disputable.  Second, the Talmud has all sorts of crap and contrary opinions in it.  Not all of it is gold.  Among other things, it says, "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray."  I doubt you'd be willing to accept that as authoritative because if Jesus deceives, then he is not God.  Maybe if you'll deny that Jesus Christ is God, I'll take you more seriously.

But ultimately, the problem with quoting the Talmud is that the Talmud is exegesis and commentary on the bible, it is not an independent source of information in addition to the bible.  So ultimately, the Talmud suggests that, if the Talmudic opinion is to have any validity, must be cashed out in terms of the bible.  And as already pointed out, that argument isn't indisputable.

Moreover, the Talmudic entry you quote states that it was a rabbinic tradition.  It doesn't tell us how popular or how well received that tradition was, or whether it was authoritative.  You're assuming a lot of things that you need in evidence to consider that in any sense authoritative.  Aside from that, you simply have the opinion of some rabbis that Eve copulated with the snake without any actual reasons for their opinion.  That's as hollow an appeal to authority as it gets.

The Talmud was introduced as a reference by another member, not myself, and as such they had to accept it's conclusion.

As far as Khemikal goes, he conceded that point.

....................no..I accepted your snakeman hypothesis...remember?

You act like you don't see threads posted questioning why black people are Christians because Christianity is the supposed religion of their oppressors.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-24848.h...istians%22

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30187.h...istians%22

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55602.h...22black%22

That being said, let me spell it out for you...

*emphasis mine*

The above makes absolutely no sense if Christianity already existed in Africa 1500 years prior, so please stop with the dishonest tactics.

In the first place, that sentence doesn't actually claim that there were no Christians prior to then because it doesn't say that the religion of those who would enslave and oppress their children was different than their own, that's an implication you're imposing upon the text.  But it doesn't matter anyway.  Having examined the thread, and now knowing what you base your claim on, I come to a different conclusion.  You were arguing against the claim that there were no Christians in Africa prior to 1400.  Khem was arguing against the proposition that the original Hebrews were black.  You both were arguing about different things, so the two of you were talking past one another rather than having a debate.  So the only reasonable thing to do is to exclude both claims and the ensuing discussion, as no actual debate on those topics actually occurred.  If my count is correct, that leaves us with nine debates, of which you have indisputable evidence of winning three of them.  That's one-third so far, not half.

*emphasis mine*
Just going to make up rules as you go?

Khemikal never disputed it any further after I made my case, YOU"RE disputing it just now, and as such I should be able to present any evidence I like. What I did present to Khemikal was the fact the Joseph was married to an Egyptian woman, and had two children from which came the Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

---

---

Again, is this good enough for you?

You're still not understanding the meaning of indisputable evidence.  As to whether I'm making up rules by pointing out that arguments you make now are not material, that's absurd, and it's pathetic that I have to point this out to you.  Your claim was that you had indisputable evidence showing that you had schooled Khemikal consistently.  Had, past tense.  That you can present new arguments to strengthen a case you made then does not retroactively amend the historical record.  They would only count insofar as they seek to establish that an argument you made then is indisputable, and presenting new arguments doesn't do that.  Furthermore, you're no longer arguing with Khemikal, so any arguments you make with me are essentially irrelevant to your claims about your performance against Khem.  And finally, that you apparently feel the need to bring additional evidence is prima facie evidence that even you don't consider the arguments which you had made indisputable.

Anyway, as already noted, the debates in question never actually occurred, so it's a moot point.

Khem never addressed what I said therefore it was the end of the discussion on the subject. There were no further disagreements therefore there was no further evidence presented.

What are you talking about? The original Hebrews WERE black.

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?

As you can see, khem clearly addressed what I said, so you're not weaseling your way out of this one...

so now you're going to count every tangent of the original discussion as a separate debate? Talk about moving the goalposts.

Answered below.

Here were your original terms...
*emphasis mine*

OR is a funny word isn't it?

No, that's not correct.  As anyone can see from examining that thread, my original terms were as follows:

All you're proving is that it is a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  But whatever.  Produce every debate you've ever had with Khem, and show that you've won at least half of them.  And not just in your judgement, but indisputably.

And your 'original' terms were beyond ridiculous... and as such didn't agree to those terms.

Let's see, you expect me to comb over 5 years worth of posts and show that I won half of the debates? Usually to win something you have to have at least one win over the opposition.

So.. you've already conceded that I've won 3 points, how about you showing Khem winning 4 or at the very least 3 points? That's fair isn't it?

So that's a no to both whether I'm moving the goalposts by counting any arguments of Khem and yours that I can find as well as a no to the complaint that my original terms only included arguments you present to me.  But there's more going on here that bears examination.

As is typical of you, having failed to prove your initial claim in its substance, you instead want to focus on technicalities and engage in pettifoggery to establish a win, even if it doesn't establish your original point.  You exhibit a slavish devotion to the letter of the law, even if it is at odds with the spirit of the law.  Let us say that I acquiesced to your demand that we abide by the second statement of the challenge, ignoring for the moment that your interpretation is incorrect.  Instead of proving that a fair assessment of all the arguments you've had with Khem showing that you have consistently schooled him, you would prefer to focus on a biased selection of his arguments which, because they don't include all his arguments, is not a fair assessment of your claim to have consistently schooled him.   That would be biting your nose off to spite your own face.  But far from being an exception, this is typical of you.  You regularly make your stand on the definition of words, specific interpretations, and other technicalities rather than aquitting the substance of your claims.  You engage in such chicanery and pettifoggery so regularly that it has almost completely undermined your credibility on this forum.  It's such that I think that "pyrrhic victory" should be your middle name.  You choose a cheap victory over a substantial win, thereby winning the battle but losing the war.

No ma'am, the links you provided didn't start at the beginning of those threads, they pointed to specific pages. therefore the only logical conclusion is that you wanted me to focus on those specific pages.

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.

Wrong, you said 'two' NOT 'half'

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

*emphasis mine*
Last I checked, two is not half of five...
 

I nowhere indicated which specific debates were in those threads nor that each thread contained only one debate.  I simply referred to debates plural.  Additionally, because those threads ultimately link to all of the threads of the forum, arguably any thread on the forum is fair game as I didn't indicate that the debates were at the terminus of that link itself (and they indeed couldn't be, as a debate requires multiple posts, and a link can only unambiguously point to one post, if that).  Regardless, we haven't exceeded the scope of my original links, so considering anything within those threads as falling under the rubric of "the following debates" is fair game.

The Oxford English dictionary defines produce as "To bring forward or out, to present to view or notice; to show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use," by referencing those threads within which the arguments were made, you were unintentionally providing me access to the entire contents of that thread, whether unintentionally or not.  That you yourself interpret it as you intentionally making an issue of a specific argument, as opposed to simply "providing" a thread of multiple arguments for my consideration is an interpretation, which, much like many of your arguments, depends upon interpreting the meaning of that word in a specific way rather than another perfectly valid interpretation.

And, I explicitly said in that post that I was starting you off.  That seems to necessarily imply that the list and such I was making available would not necessarily in and of themselves conclude the argument, but only provide a jumping off point from which further elaboration could be provided, if justified.

But ultimately, these technical points are unnecessary because, as noted, they neither were my original terms, nor, if they were fulfilled, would they substantiate your original claim.

*emphasis mine*

Wow...

Those mental gymnastics are on point.

[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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[Shell B]

I knew this would get split.

Yeah, but it's not for real split. It's user split. Thanks, Jor!

[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.

---

[GUBU]

Splitter!

[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!!!