Sav to debate in online forum

Post by **Savonarola** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:50 pm

Savonarola wrote:
Doug wrote:Is there a "peanut gallery"?
Yes, here, but you'd have to register to post. Everybody else stopped caring at about marc's second post.

On the other hand, there's a (different) complete nut in the religion forum going on and on about fulfilled prophecies. I'd love to kick his ass up and down, but I just don't know enough about the Bible to slaughter him. I know a couple of people here who could do it without breaking a sweat...

Post by **Dardedar** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:05 pm

DAR
Tell him about our reward. Get him to give one or two examples (no stacks) and an attempt to back them up. Our six guidelines are very reasonable and educational. There are no supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecies. Not one. There are many examples of failed Bible prophecies.
There is a great deal of horseshit published about Bible prophecies. It's practically an industry. Our simple and concise tract can be used to dismantle everyone of them. Just make sure to work on one or two at a time. Christians like to use a shotgun approach and say they have thousands.

D.

Post by **Savonarola** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:11 pm

The judges have weighed in. Results can be read here.

Ringside discussion here.

ChristianLoeschel · Post by **ChristianLoeschel** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:44 pm

Good job man, wouldnt expect less

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:29 pm

Savonarola wrote:The judges have weighed in. Results can be read here.

DOUG
You won by an unanimous decision. Congratulations! Do more of this!

I disagreed with some of the judges' evaluations. I don't think your opponent did nearly as well as one of the judges seemed to think. I also don't think remarks about your alleged hostile tone were justified. I think you were too nice to the moron, in fact. If they thought you were too hostile, I probably ought not debate on that board!

Good job!

Post by **Savonarola** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:07 pm

Doug wrote:I don't think your opponent did nearly as well as one of the judges seemed to think.

Regarding the actual topic, I agree with you. But I felt that he did such a good job of blowing smoke and repeating the nonsense that I actually had to defend it. I discussed this a bit in the Ringside thread now that I can post there. I still maintain that the debate was over after my first post, but I was afraid that the sheer volume of bullshit that came afterward would detract from this.

Doug wrote:I also don't think remarks about your alleged hostile tone were justified. I think you were too nice to the moron, in fact.

They've been trying to keep the formal debates really clean recently, so this is part of the reason a couple of the judges weren't thrilled. Still, as I posted in Ringside, marc brought it upon himself by swearing to produce truth, being caught in a lie, and then lying about lying.

Doug wrote:If they thought you were too hostile, I probably ought not debate on that board!

They only do the 5/4 format, which you hate. On the other hand, everyone there you'd want to debate against is somebody you could defeat in a 5/1 format...

Post by **Dardedar** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:09 am

Doug wrote:I also don't think remarks about your alleged hostile tone were justified. I think you were too nice to the moron, in fact.

DAR
No, I see their point here. Sav started out setting the bar very high and this was quite impressive. He then, in relation to where he started, lowered it quite a bit. He certainly didn't cross any lines or anything but I thought he hurt himself just a little bit from the perspective of a debate tactic. By coming across as pissed off it probably gave marc a little glee and revealed how much he was getting to him. No biggie. Sav kicked butt as all could see.

D.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:34 pm

I"m with Doug - I don't think your opponent did nearly as well as they think he did. The first judge did the most objective review. It is apparent that the 2nd two were exceedingly irritated about Sav having won, but at least were too honest to claim otherwise.

Post by **Savonarola** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:29 am

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:It is apparent that the 2nd two were exceedingly irritated about Sav having won, but at least were too honest to claim otherwise.

The second judge is the only one I knew wouldn't be searching for excuses to give the win to marc. I can only guess that he was perturbed that I didn't just roast marc's sorry ass without being mean because I clearly had him pulverized and potshots weren't necessary.