If the debate was "PEOPLE should believe in YEC", you would be right. But the title is about what CHRISTIANS should believe. If Christians should believe science and not the bible, what is the point of being a Christian? Then the debate title should be, "Should Anyone BE Christian?" But for your debate you made the Bible the authority on what constitutes correct Christian belief. So whether the Bible supports or contradicts YEC will be the determining factor of whether Christians SHOULD believe in YEC.
The debate is actually about whether Christians should believe YEC, not about whether YEC is true. As both debaters believe the Bible is true and the authoritative word of God, the debate becomes, Does the Bible support or contradict YEC? To my mind, the loser of this debate will be the party who fails to show verses or doctrine from the Bible supporting his position. If the Bible is silent on the issue, then the debate become moot.
I'm surprised that no one listed what those Modern Western values are. If they had been listed, we would have been able to see that every one of them has corollary in Bible.
Every western value is based on the axiom that all men are created equal, and the men who expounded it used God, if not always as an entity, but as a concept to ground the idea of intrinsic, inalienable rights. It is actually the enlightenment philosophy that owes more to Christianity. Hat tip to con.
One of the clique will come a put you back on top. No one is "shitting" on you. You're just upset because the mod took back his vote. But notice, I did not ask him to.
You disagree with me about your debate vote, but so what? Must everyone agree with you?
The power of the clique is not that they are great debaters, but that their clique vote mods ensure votes against them get removed, and votes for them remain.
All this crying is unbecoming for one aspiring to be Dart elite. Hey clique mods, see what happens when you make them think winning is their right?
You were not a mod before I left. So I was not referrng to you there. I don't know you, so I will take your word.
>The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice.
There is a reason that view persists. But the new mod team seems to be less inclined to that view. I really have no issue with you, but it was suspicious that the one debate I picked at random immediately has a mod removing my vote and having a 5 page RFD in tow.
And another vote a day earlier in another debate, same thing. My RFD may have been inadequate, but it is curious how quickly my votes are reported and how often a debate that has sat idle for weeks suddenly gets another vote right after mine is removed. And the other vote always goes against mine.
But rest easy. If I had a problem with you, I would take it up with you.
I have no issues with you that need to go to Virt. That is fair enough, though muffins might have a slight problem with it.
No worries, there is still a lot of time, some other clique member will come and vote to straighten out this outrage. I really thought speed was one of you guys. Guess he wasn't.
>"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
You were on point except for this one. For this argument, the bible was an acceptable authority, and the concept of the trinity being found in the bible would be consistent with con's position that the trinity was not pagan. Requiring con not to appeal to the bible was illogical. He just needed to correctly do so, and show it in his argumentation.
Interesting arguments to support the conduct point.
S&G stands for spelling and grammar. Pros grammar was just not as good. Grammar is more than just spelling or typos. It is also about clarity and flow. Pro was better.
Edit: sorry, I've been mixing up pro and con. Speed is better.
Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?
Monkey expects me to believe it is coincidence that my reported vote just happened to be on the same debate he intended to vote on. And he then vote's immediately after my vote and puts pro on top. Please.
I have not been on the board for 10 months, so obviously I meant any vote other than this one. Monkey has a debate score of 100%. Shall we take a look see on who voted for him in those 12 debates?
@Ragnar, do you want to now question tied votes? Things happen in life. Speed forfeited a round, but not the debate. I have no reason to believe his missing a round was due to sloth or disinterest. His arguments were better.
As most people do not know when they are ovulating, pregnancy can occur without vaginal sex, and protection sometimes fail, heterosexual IS a threat under your belief system. How do you think so many people get pregnant when they didn't intend to?
What I fail to understand is how a natural process, willingly entered into by the woman, can be a "threat". Why would she willingly engage in sex if it is such a threat to her life?
And the question stands. In the real life case you analogized, we are not able to kill trespassers if removing them will kill them. In France for example, one may not remove trespassing squatters in the winter time. In some places in the US, the gas company cannot turn off your gas in the winter time.
My question is, since it was you bringing the analogy, why should the woman be able to kill the trespasser when in the real cases you referred to, she would not be legally able to.
Sorry, I didn't mean to. OK then, you didn't answer my question. I just want to know how your idea of an embryo being a trespasser deals with its real life part of the analogy. If pregnancy is always a threat that justifies force, simple sex between a man and a woman is itself a threat. Under your belief, homosexual sex is not a threat, but heterosexual sex is. Thanks for the answer and sorry about the unintentional semantics issue.
Depending on how you define "threat", every pregnancy can be a threat. But are you saying that if a pregnancy poses no threat, the woman cannot legally kill the child? Or that pregnancy always poses a threat, so a woman is always justified in use of force? It seems to me that at worst, this is a potential threat. Any trespasser is also a potential threat, yet I cannot legally kill a trespasser just for being in an unauthorized place. Why is this allowed for women and babies?
If I catch a trespasser, I am not allowed to kill him in my attempts to get him out. How does this jive with your analogy of the baby being a trespasser? Does the woman's right to control her body means she can evict the baby even if that eviction means the death of the trespasser?
It was a good debate. I'm still mulling over who I think did better. I expected it to be an easy ride for Pro, but Con made good points and held his own on rebuts. Wish more debates were like this.
You really think alleging silly things like "rants" sways the Gentle Readers? You and Virt gave all points to bsh1. You and wylted are in the Voting Club with Virt who appointed you, and Virt and bsh1 are mods, aaaaand, bsh1 is about to be #1 on the leaderboard as the best debater. Oh my! How serendipitous!
You're not just a ringer. You're the boards OFFICIAL ringer, by appointment to his majesty bsh1. Virt used to be a pretty good person. I guess bad company does ruin good character.
Right, but it wasn't a fortune cookie that gave full points to bsh1 after your pal and fellow vote club member wylted threw the match in the last round. It was you and fellow vote club member Virt.
"Vote Club" is starting to take on a whole different meaning. My God this is petty. Fakery and cheating to raise your elo? Really?
The words bachelor and married are concepts that do not depend on existence. They are concepts that can apply to real or imaginary things, so your rebut is ad hoc.
>Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori.
He didn't need to make an overt claim. He argued that God is (by philosophy) necessary. The existence of a necessary being is a priori.
>Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
It doesn't, as we aren't comparing bachelors to God. We are comparing the relationship between the concepts bachelor and unmarried, and God and ultimate truth. The concepts works on real things or fictional things.
For example, instead of unmarried and bachelor, it could have been "horned equine" and "unicorn".
Your dismissal was arbitrary and without logic. You did not show his position to not be a priori.
It is obvious that Pro is claiming "a priori" Knowldge. Just as the very definition of "bachelor" means unmarried, the very definition of God means ultimate truth/ultimate reality and thus must necessarily exist.
If someone used a dictionary to show how a bachelor could not be married, he would not be saying, "a bachelor is not married BECAUSE a dictionary says so", he would be saying, "The dictionary says so BECAUSE a bachelor is not married."
Con has not shown why Pro's argument is not a priori" Knowldge.
No. I'm not obsessive. I don't care if you are irrationally obsessed. You made a stupid argument, that is life. Do better next time. As bsh1 said, you seem a little too invested in this. For your own mental health, I think I'll put you on ignore till your obsession quiets down.
If you have them, take them or smoke them. And keep the foot elevated.
"And God not being able to "Negates omnipotence. That's what you can't see."
Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic? God can be limited and still omnipotent. That is illogical, but so what right?
Make up your mind. Is God able to illogical things or not? You must pick one position. Argue both and you contradict yourself. You are the shooter. Your gun. Your foot.
"Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts."
I did. Your entire argument is self-contradictory. I am aware you don't see the contradiction. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it.
And God not being able to do illogical things is not being "subject" to logic. Words mean things. You can't substitute them willy nilly without changing meaning.
So make up your mind. Can God do the illogical or not? If you say "yes" as you seem to want to say now, then God can be "subject" to logic AND still be omnipotent. Your gun. Your foot.
"Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?"
God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around.
"Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?"
God is omnipotent, I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "unlimited powers". And if you contend that God should be able to do illogical things, then not being able to do some of the things you can do while still being omnipotent is possible. You can't argue both sides and not be contradictory.
"Please answer these."
If you want more in depth answers, start a thread. My vote only needs to stand to the vote mod, not you.
Magic, either God cannot do the illogical, in which case your objections to omnipotence are bogus, or God can do the illogical, in which case your objections using logic are bogus.
You shot yourself in the foot. Vert, being a decent person, feels despondent about his ff and misspost. But he did not lose to you. You just had an illogical argument.
Both of you can stop acting stupid. A link to a study is not evidence. Neither of you know what you're talking about.
Anyway, you have no reason to be bent. If you think you have evidence, more power to you. I don't have to accept it or agree with it, and I couldn't care less for what you ignorant dweebs think.
I don't have to debate you either, and again, I don't care for your 3rd grade taunts. If either of you had an argument, you wouldn't be trying to gain my attention.
You are too stupid to debate, go whine and moan to someone who cares. But if you ever want someone competent to take you on, you will have to lose the stupidity. Just sayin.
"Erm no, I’m afraid I’m not going to let you project on the this one."
As a liberal, it will be difficult for you to grasp that you can't "let" me do anything.
The man/boy challenged me to a debate. I declined. If his retort is that my refusal means I'm scared, it proves my refusal was the correct thing to do. If he becomes angry and calls my refusal an "attack", he certainly is not someone stable enough to debate.
Either way, he is too stupid to debate, and abiogenesis has no evidence for it. I will not debate flat earthers, UFO believers, water memory people, or whether Santa is married. Or abiogenesis pushers. I have better things to do with my time.
"Our last conversation consisted of you...."
By your self judgement. Sorry, your opinion is not fact. I don't share that liberal delusion.
"How about you debate MagicAintReal, and we can see...."
Stop begging and or taunting. I will not change my mind. As is my right, even though you losers view my not doing what you want as an attack. I never debate for others, so what you will see is never my interest.
Go find someone who thinks your opinion valuable. Surely there is someone?
And all you do is claim that you know but never show it. Oh, and go around the debate board voting for atheists regardless of the validity of their arguments.
Because first, your posts make it clear you are an idiot. No pne wants to debate an idiot. Plus, anyone smart and confident enough to debate would already know abiogenesis has no evidence, and thus would know the debate is pointless.
Very funny. If that doesn't confirm for you that you're an idiot and that people see you that way, I don't know what will. Everyone is wrong except you. Yeah, I'm laughing.
-->@Sum1hugme
If the debate was "PEOPLE should believe in YEC", you would be right. But the title is about what CHRISTIANS should believe. If Christians should believe science and not the bible, what is the point of being a Christian? Then the debate title should be, "Should Anyone BE Christian?" But for your debate you made the Bible the authority on what constitutes correct Christian belief. So whether the Bible supports or contradicts YEC will be the determining factor of whether Christians SHOULD believe in YEC.
The debate is actually about whether Christians should believe YEC, not about whether YEC is true. As both debaters believe the Bible is true and the authoritative word of God, the debate becomes, Does the Bible support or contradict YEC? To my mind, the loser of this debate will be the party who fails to show verses or doctrine from the Bible supporting his position. If the Bible is silent on the issue, then the debate become moot.
I'm surprised that no one listed what those Modern Western values are. If they had been listed, we would have been able to see that every one of them has corollary in Bible.
Every western value is based on the axiom that all men are created equal, and the men who expounded it used God, if not always as an entity, but as a concept to ground the idea of intrinsic, inalienable rights. It is actually the enlightenment philosophy that owes more to Christianity. Hat tip to con.
Doesn't each person have TWO grandfathers?
Chillax dude.
One of the clique will come a put you back on top. No one is "shitting" on you. You're just upset because the mod took back his vote. But notice, I did not ask him to.
You disagree with me about your debate vote, but so what? Must everyone agree with you?
The power of the clique is not that they are great debaters, but that their clique vote mods ensure votes against them get removed, and votes for them remain.
All this crying is unbecoming for one aspiring to be Dart elite. Hey clique mods, see what happens when you make them think winning is their right?
Wow, no one, not even the two mods who voted, saw or reported the last two votes with no RFD. Hilarious.
Wow.
You first contacted me 2 weeks ago...
>Probably bad form to critique a voter of your own debate, but here:...
Your form has really improved since then hasn't it?
A week ago I said this,
"It's amazing how seriously you guys take this petty stuff." And Muffins might have a "slight problem" with the new vote.
I was more correct than I knew. It's clear to me now who the clique members are.
My apologies to Ragnar and Speedrace. Muffins, calm down. Nothing here is worthy of such histrionics.
It was weird cause we had just been talking on another thread in the forums. OK. Thanks for the heads up.
You were not a mod before I left. So I was not referrng to you there. I don't know you, so I will take your word.
>The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice.
There is a reason that view persists. But the new mod team seems to be less inclined to that view. I really have no issue with you, but it was suspicious that the one debate I picked at random immediately has a mod removing my vote and having a 5 page RFD in tow.
And another vote a day earlier in another debate, same thing. My RFD may have been inadequate, but it is curious how quickly my votes are reported and how often a debate that has sat idle for weeks suddenly gets another vote right after mine is removed. And the other vote always goes against mine.
But rest easy. If I had a problem with you, I would take it up with you.
I have no issues with you that need to go to Virt. That is fair enough, though muffins might have a slight problem with it.
No worries, there is still a lot of time, some other clique member will come and vote to straighten out this outrage. I really thought speed was one of you guys. Guess he wasn't.
>"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
You were on point except for this one. For this argument, the bible was an acceptable authority, and the concept of the trinity being found in the bible would be consistent with con's position that the trinity was not pagan. Requiring con not to appeal to the bible was illogical. He just needed to correctly do so, and show it in his argumentation.
Interesting arguments to support the conduct point.
I know. But was it just chance that you were around to answer?
Thanks. How come you responded instead one of the debaters?
OK. The "arguments" tab said 4.
Why is voting on with only two rounds complete?
>Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before?
S&G stands for spelling and grammar. Pros grammar was just not as good. Grammar is more than just spelling or typos. It is also about clarity and flow. Pro was better.
Edit: sorry, I've been mixing up pro and con. Speed is better.
Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?
Monkey expects me to believe it is coincidence that my reported vote just happened to be on the same debate he intended to vote on. And he then vote's immediately after my vote and puts pro on top. Please.
I have not been on the board for 10 months, so obviously I meant any vote other than this one. Monkey has a debate score of 100%. Shall we take a look see on who voted for him in those 12 debates?
@Ragnar, do you want to now question tied votes? Things happen in life. Speed forfeited a round, but not the debate. I have no reason to believe his missing a round was due to sloth or disinterest. His arguments were better.
No vote of mine has been reported in 10 months. And yes, you could write all that in a day, though you had longer.
Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?
I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears.
>Again, none of this is done
I'm going to keep track how often you come after me to a debate you were not going to vote on, and nullify my vote.
2 times now. You couldn't remove my vote, so you voted yourself to make the liberal win. It's amazing how seriously you guys take this petty stuff.
The voter's recollection of Con's arguments was nebulous. What are the "several examples" presented in Con's case that disprove's Pro's premise?
That would require me repost the argument itself! Basically you are asking I argue con's case again.
Pro said God is incompatible with evil, but show no logical reason why this had to be so.
As most people do not know when they are ovulating, pregnancy can occur without vaginal sex, and protection sometimes fail, heterosexual IS a threat under your belief system. How do you think so many people get pregnant when they didn't intend to?
What I fail to understand is how a natural process, willingly entered into by the woman, can be a "threat". Why would she willingly engage in sex if it is such a threat to her life?
And the question stands. In the real life case you analogized, we are not able to kill trespassers if removing them will kill them. In France for example, one may not remove trespassing squatters in the winter time. In some places in the US, the gas company cannot turn off your gas in the winter time.
My question is, since it was you bringing the analogy, why should the woman be able to kill the trespasser when in the real cases you referred to, she would not be legally able to.
Sorry, I didn't mean to. OK then, you didn't answer my question. I just want to know how your idea of an embryo being a trespasser deals with its real life part of the analogy. If pregnancy is always a threat that justifies force, simple sex between a man and a woman is itself a threat. Under your belief, homosexual sex is not a threat, but heterosexual sex is. Thanks for the answer and sorry about the unintentional semantics issue.
Depending on how you define "threat", every pregnancy can be a threat. But are you saying that if a pregnancy poses no threat, the woman cannot legally kill the child? Or that pregnancy always poses a threat, so a woman is always justified in use of force? It seems to me that at worst, this is a potential threat. Any trespasser is also a potential threat, yet I cannot legally kill a trespasser just for being in an unauthorized place. Why is this allowed for women and babies?
Question:
If I catch a trespasser, I am not allowed to kill him in my attempts to get him out. How does this jive with your analogy of the baby being a trespasser? Does the woman's right to control her body means she can evict the baby even if that eviction means the death of the trespasser?
It was a good debate. I'm still mulling over who I think did better. I expected it to be an easy ride for Pro, but Con made good points and held his own on rebuts. Wish more debates were like this.
>Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
Sure. But I'll bet you're also going to keep giving bsh1 and Virt all your votes.
Think about it, you're the reason why many members won't do formal debates. Fake voting. You proud?
But take heart, the people who hire your fake votes have the greater sin. You're just the muscle, not the Don.
You really think alleging silly things like "rants" sways the Gentle Readers? You and Virt gave all points to bsh1. You and wylted are in the Voting Club with Virt who appointed you, and Virt and bsh1 are mods, aaaaand, bsh1 is about to be #1 on the leaderboard as the best debater. Oh my! How serendipitous!
You're not just a ringer. You're the boards OFFICIAL ringer, by appointment to his majesty bsh1. Virt used to be a pretty good person. I guess bad company does ruin good character.
Right, but it wasn't a fortune cookie that gave full points to bsh1 after your pal and fellow vote club member wylted threw the match in the last round. It was you and fellow vote club member Virt.
"Vote Club" is starting to take on a whole different meaning. My God this is petty. Fakery and cheating to raise your elo? Really?
It is clear this entire debate is a sham by wylted and bsh1 to pad bsh1's elo. Bsh1 and wylted are good pals from long ago.
The words bachelor and married are concepts that do not depend on existence. They are concepts that can apply to real or imaginary things, so your rebut is ad hoc.
>Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori.
He didn't need to make an overt claim. He argued that God is (by philosophy) necessary. The existence of a necessary being is a priori.
>Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
It doesn't, as we aren't comparing bachelors to God. We are comparing the relationship between the concepts bachelor and unmarried, and God and ultimate truth. The concepts works on real things or fictional things.
For example, instead of unmarried and bachelor, it could have been "horned equine" and "unicorn".
Your dismissal was arbitrary and without logic. You did not show his position to not be a priori.
It is obvious that Pro is claiming "a priori" Knowldge. Just as the very definition of "bachelor" means unmarried, the very definition of God means ultimate truth/ultimate reality and thus must necessarily exist.
If someone used a dictionary to show how a bachelor could not be married, he would not be saying, "a bachelor is not married BECAUSE a dictionary says so", he would be saying, "The dictionary says so BECAUSE a bachelor is not married."
Con has not shown why Pro's argument is not a priori" Knowldge.
Ah, OK. I agree with you so....
Thanks.
The Pro/Con - Instigator/Contender thing confuses me. What will you be arguing BT?
"Answer and we'll talk about the score board."
No. I'm not obsessive. I don't care if you are irrationally obsessed. You made a stupid argument, that is life. Do better next time. As bsh1 said, you seem a little too invested in this. For your own mental health, I think I'll put you on ignore till your obsession quiets down.
If you have them, take them or smoke them. And keep the foot elevated.
"Check and mate."
Look at the score again.
"God can be limited and still omnipotent."
"No, he cannot."
Why not? God can do the illogical. He can be limited and still omnipotent. You are the shooter dude. Its your gun and your foot.
You made an illogical argument, own it.
"And God not being able to "Negates omnipotence. That's what you can't see."
Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic? God can be limited and still omnipotent. That is illogical, but so what right?
Make up your mind. Is God able to illogical things or not? You must pick one position. Argue both and you contradict yourself. You are the shooter. Your gun. Your foot.
"Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts."
I did. Your entire argument is self-contradictory. I am aware you don't see the contradiction. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it.
And God not being able to do illogical things is not being "subject" to logic. Words mean things. You can't substitute them willy nilly without changing meaning.
So make up your mind. Can God do the illogical or not? If you say "yes" as you seem to want to say now, then God can be "subject" to logic AND still be omnipotent. Your gun. Your foot.
"Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?"
God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around.
"Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?"
God is omnipotent, I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "unlimited powers". And if you contend that God should be able to do illogical things, then not being able to do some of the things you can do while still being omnipotent is possible. You can't argue both sides and not be contradictory.
"Please answer these."
If you want more in depth answers, start a thread. My vote only needs to stand to the vote mod, not you.
That is nice virt, but it is my vote no?
Magic, either God cannot do the illogical, in which case your objections to omnipotence are bogus, or God can do the illogical, in which case your objections using logic are bogus.
You shot yourself in the foot. Vert, being a decent person, feels despondent about his ff and misspost. But he did not lose to you. You just had an illogical argument.
Both of you can stop acting stupid. A link to a study is not evidence. Neither of you know what you're talking about.
Anyway, you have no reason to be bent. If you think you have evidence, more power to you. I don't have to accept it or agree with it, and I couldn't care less for what you ignorant dweebs think.
I don't have to debate you either, and again, I don't care for your 3rd grade taunts. If either of you had an argument, you wouldn't be trying to gain my attention.
You are too stupid to debate, go whine and moan to someone who cares. But if you ever want someone competent to take you on, you will have to lose the stupidity. Just sayin.
"Erm no, I’m afraid I’m not going to let you project on the this one."
As a liberal, it will be difficult for you to grasp that you can't "let" me do anything.
The man/boy challenged me to a debate. I declined. If his retort is that my refusal means I'm scared, it proves my refusal was the correct thing to do. If he becomes angry and calls my refusal an "attack", he certainly is not someone stable enough to debate.
Either way, he is too stupid to debate, and abiogenesis has no evidence for it. I will not debate flat earthers, UFO believers, water memory people, or whether Santa is married. Or abiogenesis pushers. I have better things to do with my time.
"Our last conversation consisted of you...."
By your self judgement. Sorry, your opinion is not fact. I don't share that liberal delusion.
"How about you debate MagicAintReal, and we can see...."
Stop begging and or taunting. I will not change my mind. As is my right, even though you losers view my not doing what you want as an attack. I never debate for others, so what you will see is never my interest.
Go find someone who thinks your opinion valuable. Surely there is someone?
"I would still consider that a personal win."
Why not? You awarded the points.
And all you do is claim that you know but never show it. Oh, and go around the debate board voting for atheists regardless of the validity of their arguments.
It's not a complaint Vishnu, its a fact.
Because first, your posts make it clear you are an idiot. No pne wants to debate an idiot. Plus, anyone smart and confident enough to debate would already know abiogenesis has no evidence, and thus would know the debate is pointless.
Very funny. If that doesn't confirm for you that you're an idiot and that people see you that way, I don't know what will. Everyone is wrong except you. Yeah, I'm laughing.
Your opponent must have realized the bogus criteria on which you based the debate and bailed. lol.
Now you can say you won. Congrats.
Hey mod. You might want to start writing your RFD now. Time management and all that.