OFFICIAL DEBATE CHALLENGE:
I would like to challenge Skeptic54768 on the question: Does God Exist?
Proposed debate parameters and structure are as follows:
-Opening Statements (starting with the affirmative position)
-Rebuttal Periods (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
-Question/Answer segment (end time to be determined at the decision of a moderator)
*The affirmative position shall define his terms (including the term "God" as he intends to use it) and any other important terms he will use for the debate.
*Both parties agree to abide by the forum rules and debate guidelines as directed by the moderator(s)
Skeptic54768, do you accept this challenge and agree to these debate terms?
i would like to respectfully decline. I have done my share of one on one debating with atheists and it's always the same thing over and over again in circles. It is too time consuming. I will get yelled at again for not responding properly. i think we should just keep ti to the threads.
if you REALLY want this debate, I may reconsider. it depends how badly you want it.
I can understand why someone whose intentions were to troll the forum would decline. Their outcome would more readily be obtained by, say, responding with fallacies and diversions such as red-herrings, reversing the burden of proof, demanding people defend themselves against various tropes, ignoring detailed and specific questions whilst responding with out-of-context replies to minor points, demanding replies but ignoring questions, appeals to ignorance, god of the gaps arguments, and so on. A troll, for example, would demand proof of everything leveled against him whilst providing no backup for his vague claims.
I could also understand how someone who held themselves to a different standard of proof then they required of their questioners to decline such a challenge.
Of course, one would expect someone who wasn't able to back up their claims to decline, but none of that should apply to someone who boasts of eight years of bringing people to his Christ.
Equally, a one-on-one debate ought to relieve the pressure from someone who feels that they are being overwhelmed with questions and insults. So this all ought to be a win for skeptic54768 as this debate would allow skeptic to focus on one thread and not many.
So it's puzzling to see someone saying that they are declining because having less questions is more time consuming than more questions; how having agreed-upon terms and a specific subject would result in more, not less, topics; how agreeing on standards would lead to being [falsely] accused of not responding to the agreed standard; and how median would need to REALLY want a debate that he REALLY asked for here and in other topics.
No. You've got me there.