Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#5201
God Exists Le Sixième
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1469
rating
340
debates
40.88%
won
Description
Pro
As a proponent you are declaring the statement of a god existence to be true. This debate will request that you provide evidence of this claim. The proof have to be verifiable and cannot be based on faith. A "prove he does not exists" will not be accepted as the basis of the debate is validation of a claim and not invalidation of a claim.
Con
This person will provide their reasoning for not accepting the claim and reasoning for not accepting the claim. The focus of this person is to provide understandable reasons for not believing in the existence of a god.|
This person is one who believes in the exitance of a god
I've proposed multiple debates on this topic and have found it difficult. It appears opponents want to use somewhat non explicit or indirect techniques for proof. I would like opponents to evaluate my claim and point out what is wrong with it.
As it appears opponents want to write out all the explanations of support for a god - I'll let them this time. But I will most likely only focus on one point at a time as evaluating multiple points is a somewhat more complicated activity.
I would prefer that opponents stay away from philosophical statements for their validation but appears they heavily focus on this style of communication.
As there are not that many rounds allowed on Debate Art - the debate may flow into continual debates
Round 1
Con
#1
Hi
I'm going to start of with a duplication start.
First some preamble / or initial points
--> A declaration that a super natural god exists
--> Is purported this god is all powerful - that makes me feel that this god can do what ever he wants - nothing is an impossibility
--> If god is all powerful I'm assuming he hears all that is spoken (must be noisy in his head)
Exercise / Experiment
--> I have performed the activity of requesting god to show himself to me
--> I have performed the activity of requesting god to show himself to me
--> This is based on the understanding that this god is all powerful and should be able to hear me make this request
--> my request is blunt - that I require proof of existence and feel the appearance of a god would validate this
Now - it's probably not surprising that I did not get a response.
I did then conclude that because I got no response I could not validate that a god exists.
Note: I have had people indicate that you can't say if someone that you know exists and you perform the same experiment and they don't respond and do not reply that they do not exist.
Note: I have had people indicate that you can't say if someone that you know exists and you perform the same experiment and they don't respond and do not reply that they do not exist.
What I say to that is - based on the experiment and the conditions I can make the conclusions based on the results. If a person who does not exists does not respond then I say it's perfectly valid to conclude they do not exist. If I have no other way to validate their existence. If I have other experiments I can perform that do then validation can be achieved.
Now the experiment is what has to be understood - if attempted the exact same experiment which presumes that the recipient is all powerful and can hear me then coming to same results is valid.
Now the experiment is what has to be understood - if attempted the exact same experiment which presumes that the recipient is all powerful and can hear me then coming to same results is valid.
If the person is not all powerful then an adjustment of the experiment has to be done - such as contacting a person who does now this person and indicate that I request that they inform that the person must contact me or I conclude they don't exist. Now again they may not respond but my conclusions is no more invalid.
It's the experiment and what is expected to be achieved in the experiment that is important. You make your conclusions based on the results.
Now - I did not get a response from god - and no it's not completely concrete to say that that is 100% proof of non existence. But it certainly does not mean the inverse of the conclusion either. This is based on what the experiment was attempting to validate and two responses were deemed as a possibility and the conclusions are result of the response.
This is somewhat a hypothetical - i.e. - your experiment does not prove one way or the other - but it was an experiment based on the supplied information that presents possibilities (based on the experiment).
This is somewhat a hypothetical - i.e. - your experiment does not prove one way or the other - but it was an experiment based on the supplied information that presents possibilities (based on the experiment).
Pro
#2
"Pro
As a proponent you are declaring the statement of a god existence to be true."
This is the initial challenge.
"A declaration that a super natural god exists
--> Is purported this god is all powerful - that makes me feel that this god can do what ever he wants - nothing is an impossibility"
A little slight variation here in what the opposing side is talking about. But we can still beat them at their own game.
I'll get to the proof of a god consecutively.
I want to cover the word "supernatural" being that was thrown in the mix.
Upon doing a Google search, supernatural is defined by the following : "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
Ok so I'll integrate this into my points .
Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else.
Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god.
There's the evidence you can see for yourself.
The ideology behind this god that you see is he or she conforms to his or herself making themselves the authority. They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god.
You read all about this regarding people that hold and accept this ideology of human beings.
Perhaps ironically these people are also classified as atheists.
"If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of "God," then why fear his true self, in fearing "God,"—why praise his true self in praising "God,"—why remain externalized from "God" in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god's name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his "God" he sees the demon of pride creeping forth—that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst?"
LaVey, The Satanic Bible.
Maybe ambiguous but questions are raised to point out man just being god himself. He doesn't even need laws to say otherwise that he can't and some other would be necessary.
Speaking of laws. Who does he answer to?
We read on about Laveyan satanism which holds the image of the devil as such answering to himself.
"Instead of worshiping the Devil as a real figure, the image of Satan is embraced because of its association with social nonconformity and rebellion against the dominant system."
Going against a dominant system is saying nothing is more dominant than you. Such as God outside of you or a government that depicts "IN GOD WE TRUST ".
Reading more about Lavayen.
"LaVey also conceptualised Satan as a symbol of the individual's own vitality,[57] thus representing an autonomous power within,[58] and a representation of personal liberty and individualism.[59] Throughout The Satanic Bible, the LaVeyan Satanist's view of god is described as the Satanist's true "self"—a projection of his or her own personality—not an external deity.[60] In works like The Satanic Bible, LaVey often uses the terms "god" and "Satan" interchangeably, viewing both as personifications of human nature."
A human god . Thanks Mr. Lavey for shedding the light explaining the point.
That's really it in short. The personification of an individual person has the power within, the autonomy of themselves, not from a government or external figure. A person has it all as a personified deity.
When you see a person, that is proof of god.
Oh and before I forget, a supernatural god .
A person such as Mr. Lavey and others of the occult were and are supernatural.
As we read about the occult in Wikipedia we find information in the introduction of Laveyan satanism.
"LaVeyan Satanism is the name given to the form of Satanism promoted by American occultist and author Anton LaVey"
So Mr. Lavey was an occultist which is synonymous with supernatural. All that is needed for this to be labeled as supernatural is an event such as him founding this organization attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding.
You better believe what this occult subscribes to is beyond science. It's outside of science. It's separate from science. It makes use of no scientific understanding but its basis is symbolism from a religion that is irrelevant to scientific understanding.
Now I understand that this maybe not what the opposing side was expecting. But in these debate circles you have to expect the unexpected.
Gotta be able to argue anything that comes up that could still count as a valid fair relevant point .
You may be faced with unconventional arguments. Just the same, the challenge of counterpoints are there, thought provoking concepts which I guess are what atheists are looking for .
There are atheists that commonly cling to be logical thinkers. So to continue to debate about something conventional with theists that will typically not serve any expansion, progression or development in critical thinking usually, on that note, it be counterintuitive not to drive the intellectual conversation forward looking at things in another way that'll further stimulate super logical minds .
I know we have exceptional theists that do offer high critical thought processes that are a match for atheists that can argue at an elevated level.
But in the case of an atheist that is confident that they'll argue with someone that cannot prove a negative or wil find some impossibility of the sort, why continue to grab at low hanging fruit?
Unless it's just fun and games and no serious edification, enlightening, intriguing, challenging, stimulating dialogue is being sought after .
I yield .
Round 2
Con
#3
Hi
Ok - my opponent appears to be ignoring my initial argument and decided to go with an argument of the existence of god.
He posted multiple statements and as I stated in the initial description I will only go point by point per argument (as it is simpler that way).
"Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else."
--> can you clarify this statement - is unclear the purpose
Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god.
--> I need validation of this point
The ideology behind this god that you see is he or she conforms to his or herself making themselves the authority. They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god.
--> you see a god?
--> what does it mean - making themselves the authority?
--> "They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
--> can you explain why this would make them a god?
--> can you explain why this would make them a god?
Pro
#4
"Now on to the proof , evidence, the reality of what is evident to us about a god existing or being real or just as much a part of this reality as all else."
"--> can you clarify this statement - is unclear the purpose"
Yes you want proof, evidence. How evidence works is that it's processed in the physical. What we can see, observe, a positive, not a negative. So that's a physical god I'd demonstrate or direct your attention of sight to somewhere in reality. It might as well be on this planet where you are able to observe. As well as the area where you are, looking outside your door, in the room you're in, better yet, looking in the mirror granted you have one .
"Any person you see , every time you see a person, you see god."
"--> I need validation of this point"
I pretty much gave that throughout the whole first round. The following quote of mine is a piece of that.
"The ideology behind this god that you see is he or she conforms to his or herself making themselves the authority. They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
--> you see a god?
--> what does it mean - making themselves the authority?
"They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
" --> can you explain why this would make them a god?"
Yes I can.
When you make yourself an authority, you answer to yourself, you do what you want to do according to your rules that you set for yourself.
Many religions have an authority which is that not of those following that religion. They obey that authority as a god, worship and honor as such.
Now there are those such as atheists whom take the position of being the authority themselves instead of following another. That's what the levayan satanism occult takes on. It's the idea instead of following, worshipping, believing, having faith in a third party, they assume the role of that party.
Why have faith in what a mystical third party can do that I can just do for myself and it's not mystical but founded and certain?
For example. Others believe their god has healed the sick. I'm a doctor, I believe in myself, I have the power, I healed this ailing person. You can see that, it's proven, now give me the praise with honor and awards and thanks.
Others pray to their god for things. You can talk to me, call me. You ask for healing, I can grant it. You have needs, you need money, I got plenty of it and so forth and so on.
This should really be straightforward enough. Now because of the limit of rounds, I encourage the imposing side to try to get more into each round.
Round 3
Con
#5
Yes, you want proof, evidence.
How evidence works is that it's processed in the physical.
--> I do not understand what you mean by this statement.
What we can see, and observe, is a positive, not a negative.
--> Are you saying that because you can see/observe the result is a positive?
So that's a physical god I'd demonstrate or direct your attention of sight to somewhere in reality.
--> I have no idea what you are proposing here - are you saying because you can see - god is validated?
"The ideology behind this god that you see is he or she conforms to his or herself making themselves the authority. They don't rebel against themselves as their own authority hence being god."
--> This does not validate a god. You indicate a god you see - but I've never seen a god. How can you validate this? Because they don't rebel against themselves as their own authority they are a god - but can't this be a general statement about anyone
Many religions have an authority which is that not of those following that religion. They obey that authority as a god, and worship and honor as such.
--> Because someone who follows a religion and follows the being identified as a god in that does not validate a god - just that the person believes they are and following. Need verification of the being this person is following is a god.
I feel there has been no verifiable proof of a god. Your statements show no validity. Just that the declaration that a god exists is made and such a god exists. Do you have verifiable proof? Something that can be validated via an activity that shows the absolute fact that a god exists. I do not feel what has been provided shows this. If it is - could you detail it more explicitly how it does? As I said I'm hearing a lot of - god exists because he has to exist / we believe he exists - so he must exist.
Pro
#6
"--> I do not understand what you mean by this statement."
Evidence is physically presented to us.
"--> Are you saying that because you can see/observe the result is a positive?"
Yes.
A straightforward example would be you test positive for certain cancerous structure that was captured in an image in an evaluation. You test positive for the presence of this substance or that substance in your blood. When your tests are negative, it means no physical evidence or a trace of anything being tested which is why it was not seen in the test.
"--> I have no idea what you are proposing here - are you saying because you can see - god is validated?"
No you took the words out of the order I put them in. Put them right back the way I had them. I said "physical god I'd demonstrate or direct your attention of sight ".
I didn't say because you can see or have sight, god is validated or proven. That would be insubstantial because god may not be in your sight depending where you're looking which is why I said "direct your attention of sight".
Let me ask this because you're getting a handsome amount of questions in. Do you believe visual evidence can be presented to you without actually seeing it? Do you believe physical evidence can be presented to you without it actually being experienced physically?
"--> This does not validate a god. You indicate a god you see - but I've never seen a god. How can you validate this?"
Have you ever seen , experienced a person? That is god validated right before you.
"Because they don't rebel against themselves as their own authority they are a god - but can't this be a general statement about anyone"
Sure. I never said some people or a special person. I think I said when you see a person, you see a god. It can be applied to whomever aspires to take the role.
If you understand the concept of being your own god , if you understand laveyan satanism and be honest about your understanding on that, you pretty much can be honest in conceding to my side.
"--> Because someone who follows a religion and follows the being identified as a god in that does not validate a god - just that the person believes they are and following. Need verification of the being this person is following is a god."
We're not talking about validating god in this particular point. This is what a god is to people in a religion and how a god is defined. An authority to follow and submit to. We're talking a definition and meaning of a god here. You wanted proof(physical verification) of a god existing, you can physically verify a person and that person also moves to take the role and meaning of a god, self authority, just as the aspiring satan.
"I feel there has been no verifiable proof of a god. Your statements show no validity. Just that the declaration that a god exists is made and such a god exists. Do you have verifiable proof? Something that can be validated via an activity that shows the absolute fact that a god exists. I do not feel what has been provided shows this. If it is - could you detail it more explicitly how it does? As I said I'm hearing a lot of - god exists because he has to exist / we believe he exists - so he must exist."
Yes I'm not sure what you're not getting. Maybe saying less is better so I'll make this in a condensed equation.
The meaning and role of a god = authority/power to authorize/others follow and or adhere to authorizations.
The meaning of a person = a physical flesh and blood human being that is visible and apparently real to another human being.
A human being that takes on the meaning and role(authority/power to authorize/others follow and or adhere to authorization) has taken on the meaning and role of a god; can be referred to as god or called god.
Now if that isn't clear enough , I'd have to suspect intellectual dishonesty.
Round 4
Con
#7
- Evidence is physically presented tous.
- I see absolutely nothing physicallypresented that validates the existence of a god
- A straightforward example would be youtest positive for certain cancerous structure that was captured in an image in anevaluation. You test positive for the presence of this substance orthat substance in your blood. When your tests are negative, it means nophysical evidence or a trace of anything being tested which is why it was notseen in the test.
- This does not prove the existence of agod
- I said "physical god I'ddemonstrate or direct your attention of sight. I didn't say because you can see orhave sight, god is validated or proven. That would be insubstantial because godmay not be in your sight depending where you're looking which is why I said"direct your attention of sight".
- I have no idea what this means. Whatdo you mean direct your attention of sight?
- Let me ask this because you're gettinga handsome amount of questions in. Do you believe visual evidence can bepresented to you without actually seeing it? Do you believe physical evidencecan be presented to you without it actually being experienced physically?
- It is not the aspect of seeing it asmuch as there exists proof of the claim
- If you do not provide physical evidencethen I cannot validate it unless I have factual evidence of the physicalevidence. Declaring it to be physical evidence does not validate it.
- Have you ever seen , experienced aperson? That is god validated right before you.
- It is not. You making an invaliddeclaration. YOU must provide evidence of your declarations.
- Sure. I never said some people or aspecial person. I think I said when you see a person, you see a god. It can beapplied to whomever aspires to take the role.
- YOU must provide evidence of your declarations.
- If you understand the concept of beingyour own god , if you understand laveyan satanism and be honest about yourunderstanding on that, you pretty much can be honest in conceding to my side.
- No I cannot. You have provided zeroevidence of your claims
- We're not talking about validating godin this particular point. This is what a god is to people in a religion and howa god is defined. An authority to follow and submit to. We're talking adefinition and meaning of a god here. You wanted proof(physical verification)of a god existing, you can physically verify a person and that person alsomoves to take the role and meaning of a god, self authority, just as theaspiring satan.
- YOU must provide evidence of your declarations
- A human being that takes on themeaning and role(authority/power to authorize/others follow and or adhere toauthorization) has taken on the meaning and role of a god; can be referred toas god or called god.
- I have not idea what you are trying tosay
- Your statement makes no sense.
- There is no evidence provided here –just a declaration
You seem to justwant to declare a god exists without verifiable proof.. You don’t want to providefactual evidence. This is making me think you don’t understand what factualevidence is You just re iterate the same things over and over and not at all providewhat is requested, Try to provide the evidence asked for, I don’t care to readbetween the lines. I want you to describe what I can do and that would validatethe existence of a god. If I read the same statements again I will again saythat’s not proof. Provide proof. Not claims that have no proof.
Pro
#8
"I see absolutely nothing physicallypresented that validates the existence of a god"
Let's face it. Nothing I say here will be accepted. You're on the negative or opposing side. Of course you naturally as a reflex will outright reject the opposing case. Just automatically.
You have not debunked anything I've said proving it's false. Atheists believe in a god that's their own. They believe they're their own gods. I've explained this thoroughly from the first round.
You poorly highlight where you've quoted me this round so I may not be able to respond accurately because of that.
Here's what I THINK you have put in text and not what I've said. I don't want to respond to my own points. I'm responding to yours.
"I have no idea what this means. Whatdo you mean direct your attention of sight?"
For example, I say look there, look here. I use my finger and point to where I say to you to look. Do you get that? As simple as that is.
"It is not the aspect of seeing it asmuch as there exists proof of the claim
If you do not provide physical evidencethen I cannot validate it unless I have factual evidence of the physicalevidence. Declaring it to be physical evidence does not validate it."
I just asked direct yes or no questions. Do you believe physical evidence can be presented without it actually being physical?
That's a yes or a no. A person is a physical thing is it not? Another yes or no.
You want evidence. How else is something proved to you without you seeing it or experiencing it ?
No matter what I say, I'm getting this arguing from you coming across in an obtuse fashion.
"It is not. You making an invaliddeclaration. YOU must provide evidence of your declarations."
I've explained what constitutes a god. Anton Lavey agrees even if you don't. He such as others declare that a person can and is their own god. You can continue to reject this technicality because you didn't see it coming and don't wish to concede.
That's your business and prerogative.
"YOU must provide evidence of your declarations."
IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON.
IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON.
IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON.
What do YOU NOT GET ABOUT THAT?
Are you struggling to understand how a person could be a god?
You have not come to terms with how I'm constituting what makes a god. Apparently that is one of your issues.
"No I cannot. You have provided zeroevidence of your claims"
FIrst thing first , you have to understand the concept of being your own god . If you can't understand that, the evidence won't exist to you. How can you witness evidence and you can't understand what you're witnessing?
You're putting the cart before the horse. That's the problem you've been having all debate long. You don't understand or refuse to understand the concept. So we really can't go any further.
"I have not idea what you are trying tosay
- Your statement makes no sense."
Well I understand. Whether you're being disingenuous or not I don't know. But I think we both know that you can't ascertain the evidence without understanding.
"There is no evidence provided here –just a declaration"
You don't even have understanding so you possibly can't understand to declare there's no evidence.
"You seem to justwant to declare a god exists without verifiable proof.. You don’t want to providefactual evidence. This is making me think you don’t understand what factualevidence is You just re iterate the same things over and over and not at all providewhat is requested, Try to provide the evidence asked for, I don’t care to readbetween the lines. I want you to describe what I can do and that would validatethe existence of a god. If I read the same statements again I will again saythat’s not proof. Provide proof. Not claims that have no proof."
Well we have a couple of rounds left. Here's what I'll say, until you get the understanding of people being their own god, there's nothing else further.
So either research it on your own , then come back next round with some understanding and actually REFUTE that people can't be their own god because you have not refuted that YET as being an impossibility.
Either research it or scrutinize what it means to be your own god. If you as a person can be your own god and you exist, how would not a god exist?
Do you get that? Are you pretending to be slow to comprehend or what?
Do you readers get this ?
Don't pretend to be obtuse because it won't get you out of conceding.
Round 5
Con
#9
Let's face it. Nothing I say here willbe accepted. You're on the negative or opposing side. Of course you naturallyas a reflex will outright reject the opposing case. Just automatically.
My point is that nothing you havestated I find any validation for. You seem to want to declare because I’m onthe opposing side that I’m not going to believe regardless. And I stated multiple times I would like to seeproof.
You have not debunked anything I'vesaid proving it's false. Atheists believe in a god that's their own. Theybelieve they're their own gods. I've explained this thoroughly from the firstround.
I have indicated all your statementsare invalid. They provide no verifiable proof. Debunk you – you debunk yourself.
And Atheists do not believe in any god.Your accusations are pathetic. Just a means to try and accuse someone else ofsomething because they believe in what you believe. Pathetic.
For example, I say look there, lookhere. I use my finger and point to where I say to you to look. Do you get that?As simple as that is.
You don’t see the confusion your statementscause. It was an attempt to understand your point and what it had to do withthe claim of the existence of a god.
That's a yes or a no. A person is aphysical thing is it not? Another yes or no.
And what’s the purpose of thesequestions? What do they achieve?
I've explained what constitutes a god.Anton Lavey agrees even if you don't. He as others declares that a personcan and is their own god. You can continue to reject this technicality becauseyou didn't see it coming and don't wish to concede. That's your business and prerogative.
I do not care about the perspective ofsomeone being a god. It does not correlate to my original statements”
“ --> A declarationthat a supernatural god exists--> Is purported this god is allpowerful - that makes me feel that this god can do whatever he wants - nothingis an impossibility--> If god is all powerful I'massuming he hears all that is spoken (must be noisy in his head)“
It seems you want to change the basisof the debate. I started it. I decide what it’s about.
IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON. IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON. IT'S WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THAT?
I don’t give two shits about it – you seea person you see a god. Answer what was asked.
Are you struggling to understand how aperson could be a god? Exactly how did you validate that whenyou see a person you see an all-powerful, supernatural being that is the most powerfulbeing in existence? Again all you have ever done is make claims with no proof,Pathetic.
You have not come to terms with howI'm constituting what makes a god. Apparently, that is one of your issues.
You haven’t. You just make claims andprovide no proof.
Are you struggling to understand how aperson could be a god?
Exactly how did you validate that whenyou see a person you see an all-powerful, supernatural being that is the most powerfulbeing in existence? Again all you have ever done is make claims with no proof,Pathetic.
You have not come to terms with howI'm constituting what makes a god. Apparently that is one of your issues.
You haven’t. You just make claims and provide noproof.
FIrst thing first , you have tounderstand the concept of being your own god . If you can't understand that,the evidence won't exist to you. How can you witness evidence and you can'tunderstand what you're witnessing?
I DON’T CARE ABOUT THIS IDIODIC CLAIMTHAT IN NO WAY ANSWERS WHAT WAS ASKED.
Well I understand. Whether you'rebeing disingenuous or not I don't know. But I think we both know that you can'tascertain the evidence without understanding.
You are to provide evidence that canbe reviewed to determine if it provided a means to validate the claims. Whichyou absolutely 100% did not do.
You don't even have understanding soyou possibly can't understand to declare there's no evidence.
And what understanding is that?
So either research it on your own ,then come back next round with some understanding and actually REFUTE thatpeople can't be their own god because you have not refuted that YET as being animpossibility.
I’m not here to research you dimwittedideas. You are yo provide valid proof of any claims you made.
Either research it or scrutinize whatit means to be your own god. If you as a person can be your own god and youexist, how would not a god exist?
THIS WAS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED. TRY ANDPAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS REQUESTED AND NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO.
Do you get that? Are you pretending to be slowto comprehend or what?
The only person who has limitedability to understand is you. I made a request for information and you decidedto go sideways and expect everyone to follow. I wonder about your abilitiesalso.
Don't pretend to be obtuse because itwon't get you out of conceding.
You have a lot of nerve to insult people when they don’taccept your rantings.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Didn't forfeit the last one - I was not checking the time and ran out - it was not an explicit forfeit - it was one because of the time limits
I will be willing to debate you again, since you forfeited the last one.