Job: Voter vs Pianodwarf commentary thread

[Anfauglir]

???

???

Voter, you do not get to have it both ways.  If you do not wish to enter a dialogue, you will please refrain from posting.  If you wish to say something, then say it - but as you have been advised, you will then be expected to engage in that thread.  Postings such as the above are not acceptable..

[Alzael]

The law has conditions in which Slaves are to be freed.

Like: (paraphrased) When you sell your son as a slave he is to serve for six years and be released on the seventh.

Take note that this only applies to Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves are pretty much for life unless their master feels like letting them go.

[Anfauglir]

Resolved: The treatment of Job and his family by the Christian God (as described in the Biblical book Job) was monstrous.

God put his own pleasure and glory ahead of Job’s suffering.

Am I the only one who thinks that Voter has already lost?  Unless he is going to argue "it is NOT monstrous to put your own glory ahead of someone else's suffering", surely this debate is already over?

Voter has accepted twice now that god decided that it was better to increase his glory by allowing Job to suffer, than to prevent suffering at the expense of his own glory.  As I said unless there is some new definition of "monstrous" yet to come, this point nutshells the argument for me.

Seriously guys, am I missing something here?

[Alzael]

Voter has accepted twice now that god decided that it was better to increase his glory by allowing Job to suffer, than to prevent suffering at the expense of his own glory.  As I said unless there is some new definition of "monstrous" yet to come, this point nutshells the argument for me.

Seriously guys, am I missing something here?

Voter's position is to try to have it both ways. In the Job thread he claims that even though god threatens people with eternal torment, he is still loving. He claims that we have free will, yet god forces us to serve his will at times.

This is why he can accept that god has done some seriously dickish things. Because he thinks it still means that he loves us. And because god can do whatever he wants us to us.

This exchange pretty much says it all.

There is a major difference between having the power to do what one wants, and having the right to do what one wants.

In the final analysis there's no practical difference.

I have the power to beat my children to death with a club.  But I don't have that right.

Why not?

[Ivellios]

The law has conditions in which Slaves are to be freed.

Like: (paraphrased) When you sell your son as a slave he is to serve for six years and be released on the seventh.

Take note that this only applies to Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves are pretty much for life unless their master feels like letting them go.

Well, I did try to keep it within how jews treated jewish slaves, because the feeling I got from the bible, they thought if you were a slave but you weren't a jew, you weren't a person.

It's funny how we get one thiest supporting slavery because "they didn't treat slaves bad, and it[1] was a good thing." (I forgot which one said that) and another saying it was bad to not free slaves but instead to eat, drink and be merry.

Here Voter is judging Job's children via his own morality, while stating we cannot do the same for god. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Truth is, if god is "perfect & immaculate" (typical thiest words, though not Voter's) he should be our example, what we should aspire to be. Therefore he should be under the utmost scrutiny and not to take the stance that nothing applies to him since he's god. He is our inspiration, and he is a monster.

Would a loving father allow a man to violate his daughter? Would he not be responsible even though he did not do the deed himself? If a man hired a hitman to kill his wife, even if, he was injured in the process, pretending to protect his wife to allay suspicion is he not responsible for her death even though he did not do the actual deed?

Voter, by God allowing[2] Satan to do whatever he wants[3] with Job as long as he doesn't kill him. He is still responsible, even when he did not do the deed himself. In case you're wondering, in the hitman situation, will, if it is proven to be the case, make the husband guilty of murder. The first question is rhetorical because a loving father would certainly NOT allow his daughter to be violated, and would do everything he could do to prevent such a thing from happening.

In conclusion: Someone that allows someone to be violated, does not love, said person. As well, as someone that intentionally allows it to happen, is just as guilty as if they did it themself. Finally, to be guilty of that for thier own pleasure and/or glory makes them a sadistic monster.

Edit:

Seriously guys, am I missing something here?

Looks like you got it to me.

Didn't think it took me that long to write out my post. 

1.	Biblical Slavery.
2.	or hired
3.	violate

[LadyLucy]

On a separate note, I just realized that I confused the debate about Job to be the debate about the question "WWGHA?" earlier (the last post I made in this topic)! I did so by going into the question "WWGHA?" which is the heart of the matter in the debate with Velkyn, not with Pianodwarf, and I quoted Voter from the "WWGHA?" debate topic.

My bad.  Would transfer my post there, because I meant to post it in the Voter vs. Velkyn topic!

As for the matter of slavery, Voter cannot grasp the fact that slavery was allowed and IS the Word of God in the Bible, which is timeless, regardless of the method they transport the slaves, where they were sent to, how they were treated, and all other ways/concepts about slaves in different time periods. And of course, that Job did not deserve to be tortured by Satan, the Wonder Demon, for the glory of being part of a Bible story and to be God's "toy" to show off to his enemy, Satan. They are both like little children! Observe:

Satan: I am evil, and I want to let you know that I don't think there is ONE person on Earth who'd still believe in you AND not hate you if you let me torture them.
YHWH: PFFT, keep dreaming.
Satan: Are you chicken?
YHWH: -Matter of factly voice- Well, as a matter of fact, I DO have people who'd still love and believe in me deeply if they knew that I actually let you torture them.
Satan: Hah! Who is this "champion" of yours?
YHWH: His name is Job! He is a great man and believer of me, and I am very proud to have someone so devout and as good as he is.
Satan: Will you let your "great pride and joy" be tortured, despite the probability that he may hate you in the end?
YHWH: Hell fucking yeah.
Satan: You are a liar and you over-exaggerate. Seriously, wanna bet?
YHWH: Fuck yeah, I'll bet. I'm no loser, and plus, I know he isn't going to hate me.
Satan: You sick bastard. Fine, I'll torture him, and we'll both see how he does.
YHWH: Fine! Do what you want to him. I know everything afterall, so in the end, despite him being horribly tortured, I'll win.
Satan: Again, you sick bastard. -Goes to torture Job- Don't you dare forget that YOU approved of this.
YHWH: I won't, and it won't matter in the end anyway because I will prevail! Those torture wounds? Pfft, I'll just heal him. None of it will matter! And since I am infallible and great, I won't have to explain myself any further than "Job believed in me and loved me to the very end, and that's the only thing that matters if you are one going to believe in me." See? Very simple, Satan. Everyone is satisfied! And those torture wounds will be largely ignored, disacknowledged, or people will say "but he was right in the end, so although Job was tortured, it doesn't matter!" Otherwise, I'm punishing the people who DON'T agree with what I did by spiting them and sending them to hell for all eternity.

[velkyn]

Resolved: The treatment of Job and his family by the Christian God (as described in the Biblical book Job) was monstrous.

God put his own pleasure and glory ahead of Job’s suffering.

Am I the only one who thinks that Voter has already lost?  Unless he is going to argue "it is NOT monstrous to put your own glory ahead of someone else's suffering", surely this debate is already over?

Voter has accepted twice now that god decided that it was better to increase his glory by allowing Job to suffer, than to prevent suffering at the expense of his own glory.  As I said unless there is some new definition of "monstrous" yet to come, this point nutshells the argument for me.

Seriously guys, am I missing something here?

I don't think so, An.   The whole thing revolves around what "monstrous" means.  The dictionary has

obsolete : strange, unnatural
2: having extraordinary often overwhelming size : gigantic
3a : having the qualities or appearance of a monster b obsolete : teeming with monsters
4a : extraordinarily ugly or vicious : horrible b : shockingly wrong or ridiculous 5: deviating greatly from the natural form or character : abnormal
6: very great —used as an intensive
merriam-webster.com

Now, assuming that the definition meant is the bolded one, as soon as Voter said "God put his own pleasure and glory ahead of Job’s suffering." he lost since I can't think of any human saying that it is okay for anyone to put their power and glory above anyonen else's suffering.   Voter's argument becomes one of "might makes right" and that's all it is.  As long as an abusive parent claims they "love" their children, *anything* they do to them is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.  I'm curious on how Voter defines "love".

[screwtape]

What is it with xians that they do not understand the implications that omnipotence has on responsibilitiy?

[Alzael]

What is it with xians that they do not understand the implications that omnipotence has on responsibilitiy?

Because they don't really believe that he has it. Deep down they know very well that he can't be omnipotent because of the way the world is. But in order for their faith to work he would have to be omnipotent...because of the way the world is.

[Asmoday]

Because they don't really believe that he has it. Deep down they know very well that he can't be omnipotent because of the way the world is. But in order for their faith to work he would have to be omnipotent...because of the way the world is.

I would disagree with that.

I don't think that they know deep down that he isn't omnipotent. As I see it, most of them just never think about what it means to say "God is the omnipotent creator." They have no idea what those fancy words actually mean and what implications there are if you declare an entity to be omniscient or omnipotent. It's just like when theists come here and start raving about free will and God's omniscience; completely missing that with omniscience the concept of free will (of both humans and God) flies right out of the window.

So just like they don't know that omniscience cancels free will or that omniscience can not be coupled with omnipotence, they also simply have no idea that when saying the creator of everything is omnipotent, the bucket ALWAYS stops with the omnipotent creator.

The problem is with the text of the bible itself. It's riddled with contradictions but they don't question it. The bible says God is omnipotent. The bible says there's evil in the world and God hates evil. Yet nothing happens. But the bible says so, so it must be right.

Not only do they want their cake and eat it, too, but they also have never actually thought about these things. They just blurt it out because it has been said to them so often and it got stuck in that gray mass inside their head. Just like parrots.

"God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. We have free will and God hates evil.  Gaaawk! Polly wants a cracker!"

[Grimm]

They are both like little children! Observe:

Satan: I am evil, and I want to let you know that I don't think there is ONE person on Earth who'd still believe in you AND not hate you if you let me torture them.
YHWH: PFFT, keep dreaming.
Satan: Are you chicken?...

One of my favorite books is Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice - I have to admit, you just reminded me, positively, of a passage.  So I gotta share - this bit is between Saint Alexander Hergensheimer and The Devil Himself (or.. uh.. Jerry Farnsworth):

'They are indeed the Chosen People. Of course, being chosen by Yahweh is no great shakes. Do you know your Book well enough to know how many times He crossed them up? My Brother is a bit of a jerk.'

I had had too much Jack Daniel's and too many shocks. But Jerry's casual blasphemy triggered me. 'The Lord God Jehovah is a just God!'

'You never played marbles with Him. Alec, "justice" is not a divine concept; it is a human illusion. The very basis of the Judeo-Christian code is injustice, the scapegoat system. The scapegoat sacrifice runs all through the Old Testament, then it reaches its height in the New Testament with the notion of the Martyred Redeemer. How can justice possibly be served by loading your sins on another? Whether it be a lamb having its throat cut ritually, or a Messiah nailed to a cross and "dying for your sins". Somebody should tell all of Yahweh's followers, Jews and Christians, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

'Or maybe there is. Being in that catatonic condition called "grace" at the exact moment of death - or at the final Trump - will get you into Heaven. Right? You got to Heaven that way, did you not?'

'That's correct. I hit it lucky. For I had racked up quite a list of sins before then.'

'A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst Of taking the name o Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?'

I answered stiffly, 'If you read the words of the Bible literally, that is the system. But the Lord moves in mysterious -´

'Not mysterious to Me, bud: I've known Him too long. It's His world, His rules, His doing. His rules are exact and anyone can follow them and reap the reward. But "Just" they are not.

[LadyLucy]

Why, that passage is remarkable! And very true, "Just are they not." To think that it IS just would be deluded thinking...

Edit: Tried to modify the last post I made, thanking whoever moved my post accordingly. Thank you lots!

[velkyn]

interesting ending for the debate    I should have had such a specification in my debate with voter. I do wonder if he'll ever return to that. 

[Hatter23]

What is it with xians that they do not understand the implications that omnipotence has on responsibilitiy?

When they do, it becomes "the Problem of Evil." Mountains of apoligia are devoted to said question, all creating elaborate misdirections, arcane twists, and amazing assumption...none of which actually answer said question without resorting to "God is Mysterious" and/or "If it weren't for bad, how could we detect good?" neither of which is satisfactory.

[LadyLucy]

Bleach. Horrible debate response. "It's so laughable I won't even argue against it," and such comments.

The rules were, afterall, give a poster 2 days maximum. Why does Voter feel like he is exempt from this rule? Is he really that disrespectful, and worse yet, distasteful? [Regarding the comment: "OK, whatever. I’ve been busy at work, so technical victory is yours, if that means something to you. Moving on…"] Pianodwarf never meant to toot his own horn to begin with when making the comment that Voter has exceeded the 2-day maximum of waiting. Whatever, if the rules need to be bended for further discussion, then fine. However, I do not think it's fine, regarding this:

What’s monstrous is completely subjective. It’s just one opinion against another. But, there is one way to analyze this objectively, which is, as I’ve been doing, analyzing consistency.

"Analyzing consistency"? Eugh. Does he even know what the word means? If he does, that means he has either been putting down the consistency of the matter between God and human beings (the rationality that God isn't justified in his actions merely because Job believed in him anyway in the end), or trying to analyze the action of coming to an agreement, or the action of firmness of the arguments. He simply doesn't give thoughtful enough responses. He just spews whatever he can come up with.

Take a trip to the local grocery store. Go to the meat aisle. Look around. Think about it.

We torture (food animal living conditions are frequently deplorable) and kill animals merely because they’re tasty.

Then go check out the pesticides. We torture (death by poisoning is presumably unpleasant) and kill animals merely because they annoy us by crossing a boundary which we set and of which they have no understanding.

So, yes, you do need to explain why we can treat other species like that and not think ourselves monsters, but God is monstrous for his treatment of us.

Voter resorts to a completely irrelevant topic. This isn't about the murder of animals, unless Voter is some nutty environmentalist who thinks that no cow, nor chicken, nor turkey, nor pig, etc, should be killed in order to preserve animals. Although irrelevant, it's already "check-mated" by the fact that in order for any animal to survive, whether they be a tiny insect or a human, others must be consumed. There has always been a predator chain. Sure, human beings are omnivores; does that imply we should only eat plants? Imagine that.

Voter would be thin as a stick and lacking nutrients, even with supplements from today's medicine market. Idiotic argument, suffering from "category error," and it just doesn't work. This debate is supposed to be about God's action being justified in the story of Job, and as to why it isn't or is.

Is all of your internet time – all of your spare time – devoted to causes you consider noble? If some of your time is devoted to pleasure, you’re putting your pleasure ahead of the suffering of others.

Ignorant response. Obviously he doesn't know how many people suffer from religion, directly and indirectly, or just doesn't want to acknowledge it for the sake of playing the victim. As for the other spare time, the same argument could be used for Voter, or anyone else. Absurd, and irrelevant to Job and God.

It’s evident that going to bars, watching sports, playing video games, and lots of other things are not helping our fellow man.

Leads to nowhere.

I just don't see Voter "debating" at all in this topic... 

[velkyn]

wow, this is all he has it seems.

What’s monstrous is completely subjective. It’s just one opinion against another. But, there is one way to analyze this objectively, which is, as I’ve been doing, analyzing consistency.

If monstrous is "completely subjective" that would mean that there are people out there who are all for their families being killed off for a bet and who wouldn't mind at all as long as they get a new family and more stuff after the tormenting by a braggart god who has all of the characteristics of a bratty child. Voter's defense of this would mean that he agrees with them.   

All that Voter has accomplished is even more firmly cementing the idea that many Christians are cowardly sycophants who have no problem with the sadistic actions of their god.   Yep, the god of the bible is consistently a classic Bronze Age god, powerful, but not omnipotent or omniscient, bratty as a spoiled three year old and vicious.

[Azdgari]

Voter's defense would (excuse the Godwin) excuse Hitler on the same grounds that it excuses his god.  Basically, his position is that nothing can be considered monstrous.  What a cop-out.  This goes back to my complaint on the previous page - ground-rules for what constitutes "monstrosity" needed to be set ahead of time to prevent this sort of cop-out.

[Ivellios]

I didn’t want to go into the fine points of the rules, but if you insist, a correct analysis shows that I won on your violation of the rules.

So, if I tailgate and rear-end you, and you get a baseball bat and hit my car, I can sue you for damages? Even though I broke the Law first, because you do something about it, you loose? 

You’re correct that we had a two-day window for response. However, that’s not enough for you to claim victory. We did not have:
-   a minimum required number of posts; or

You're joking, right? To dicuss/debate a topic for so many posts before starting 'the Real' Debate? 

-   a notification requirement for the last post.

ie. "I concede/yield" ? A clear victory?  Nah, the 2 day limit was in case you ran away[1], or could not refute PD. Since you're here[2], and did not refute him within the agreed time limit, you loose.

When two days expired, you therefore had no right to claim victory. I could have simply been done with my case.

Yes, he did. Also you did not state you were finished. Even if you did, if you do not carry on till it's eventual end, you're basically surrendering if he's able to continue the debate but you do not.

You did have a right under the rules to PM screwtape and force closure.

And you really should have PM’d him, rather than posting in the thread. We had a rule prohibiting consecutive posts, except for clarification of previous posts.

After you could not or would not refute him within the agreed 2 day period. You forfited. Plain and simple.

Your victory proclamation was a consecutive post which did not clarify a previous post. Therefore, when you made that post, you broke the rules, I won, and the debate was over.

After a forfit anything that happens after is irrelevent. Not enough players show up to a game and it forfits, they loose. Even if they do play ("just because," or "for fun") and the team that forfited does win, it's irrelevent, the record will show they lost. I know from personal experience, just 1 more person needed to show... and we proved they could have warmed the bench. 

You forfited, you lost. End of story. PD even gracefully let you till the next morning to post, you did not.

Voter clearly missed it the first time since he did post after, but I'll be gracious and repost it for im, since he does read "the peanut gallery."

As it happens, I am also a tournament chess player.  I don't know how much you know about such things, but all formal games are subject to time restrictions.  If one player runs out of time, it doesn't matter how much of a positional or material advantage he has or doesn't have; he has lost the game.  And if that player were to continue moving his pieces after his flag had fallen, it would amount to nothing, and those piece movements would not even be recorded in the game record.  And it would not matter what the reason was for the person running out of time, either.  A loss is a loss is a loss.

So it is here.  You ran out of time, so you lost.  And that being the case, I did not read your response, nor will I reply to it.  Nor will I reply to any subsequent posts you might make in this thread.

1.	bravely ran away!
2.	meaning, you didn't run away.

[Hatter23]

Is all of your internet time – all of your spare time – devoted to causes you consider noble? If some of your time is devoted to pleasure, you’re putting your pleasure ahead of the suffering of others.

Ignorant response. Obviously he doesn't know how many people suffer from religion, directly and indirectly, or just doesn't want to acknowledge it for the sake of playing the victim. As for the other spare time, the same argument could be used for Voter, or anyone else. Absurd, and irrelevant to Job and God.

It’s evident that going to bars, watching sports, playing video games, and lots of other things are not helping our fellow man.

Leads to nowhere.

I just don't see Voter "debating" at all in this topic... 

And it doesn't even remotely adress that people, atheists and theist alike, have finite time, finite resource, finite patience, finite lives, and that cannot be compared to an Infinite all powerful being.

Truly for this "god" character to change the world so that every single children's hospital would close for lack of business would be less of a sacrifice for him than Bill Gates giving a dollar to a homeless shelter.

[Voter]

@ TruthSeeker: Sorry, but you're wrong. pd made unwarranted assumptions about the two-day rule. Moral of the story is, don't insist on strict application of the rules without analyzing your position under the rules first!

[Ivellios]

@ TruthSeeker: Sorry, but you're wrong. pd made unwarranted assumptions about the two-day rule.

I agree.  I propose the following to start:

1)  We take turns -- no making a new post until the other person has responded.
2)  A post must be responded to within two days -- I'd make that shorter if I could, but I've got a lot going on right now and can't promise to have sufficient free time to post more frequently.

Number of posts, I'm really not sure about.  Maybe Voter has a preference?  Voter has also already offered a description for scope that I've agreed to.

There's no rush.
.....
I don't like to be limited, but it can't go on forever, either. I suggest an upper bound of 20 posts each as some sort of limit, thought I doubt we'd need that many.

What "unwarranted assumptions"? You missed the 2 day limit. You forfited. What happens after is irrelevent. I guess you're saying you did not agree on the 2 day limit?

Funny how you didn't bring that up before you made this post.

<snip>

Since this is the start of the debate, it meant you agreed to the terms, which does include the 2 day limit. Since PD did say this right before you started the actual debate:

That all sounds good.  Unless there's anything else we need to clarify, please go ahead with your first post whenever you're ready.

There were no "unwarranted assumptions about the two-day rule."

Oh, and Voter:

Moral of the story is, don't insist on strict application of the rules without analyzing your position under the rules first!

Looks like you need to take your own advice. After all, you claim victory because he broke Rule #1.

[Voter]

What "unwarranted assumptions"?

That not posting within the time limit meant forfeiting. That's how it is in chess, which he's used to, so he incorrectly read it in here. We made no rules regarding minimum number of posts before the debate could be ended, or on notification that one was concluding his argument. Therefore, I could have not posted within the two days simply because I was done. Now, that's not truly the case. But, he said himself that reasons don't matter, only the rules, and technically I did not break a rule by not posting within two days.

Ironically, I would have broken the rule if he would have just waited for me to post. In that case he could have claimed victory. But, he didn't wait, he broke the rules, the debate was over at that point, and a loss is a loss is a loss.

[Azdgari]

What did you think that the penalty would be for breaking the 2-day rule?

[Voter]

What did you think that the penalty would be for breaking the 2-day rule?

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

[Azdgari]

Your subsequent post in the thread, more than 2 days after Pianodwarf's response, indicates that you were not resting your case prior to the >2-day break.  If you were resting your case, then you had no reason to make another post.

This is really disingenuous of you, Voter.  I realize that bearing false witness is only a sin if it's against one's neighbours, but still.

[Ivellios]

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

<snip>

<snip>

Let's see, 3 days, 35 minutes, not breaking the 2 day rule?

What did you think that the penalty would be for breaking the 2-day rule?

Forfiture of debate? What else whould it be?

[LadyLucy]

Voter's defense would (excuse the Godwin) excuse Hitler on the same grounds that it excuses his god.

In the end, anything that is said could be reductio ad Hitlerum.  Funny how things work, but it is excused. Voter just doesn't see the relevance though. Poor thing can't connect the dots.

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

Reminds me of my little brother[1].

@ TruthSeeker: Sorry, but you're wrong. pd made unwarranted assumptions about the two-day rule. Moral of the story is, don't insist on strict application of the rules without analyzing your position under the rules first!

 

I already know what I am doing with you later, due to your ignorance. -Sighs- [Keep steady, Lucy]

1.

Lucy: -Watches gory, violent, scary movie not appropriate for children- Alejandro: -Stands there close by, where I can see him through the reflections of the cabinets- Lucy: What do you think you are doing? I told you many times, I'm going to say it again; this isn't for kids your age, plus, you get nightmares easily! Alejandro: I'm not watching anything. -Stands there- Lucy: Yes, you are! Alejandro: No, I'm not. -Keeps standing in the same place, trying to watch- Lucy: Please go. Alejandro: But I'm not doing anything! -Keeps standing there, trying to move his head to the sides- Lucy: Go now. You know you are going to get nightmares. You got scared of the Sith Lord even! Alejandro: No, I got over it. I don't get scared. I won't get scared this time, and I'm not doing anything! Lucy: Go. Alejandro: -Keeps standing there anyway- Lucy: You know I can see you through the reflections of the cabinets, yes? Alejandro: ... -Goes away, tries to sneak a peek through a corner- Lucy: Go upstairs to sleep. Alejandro: I'm not doing anything.

[Ivellios]

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

Reminds me of my little brother

Reminds me of my little brother.

I have the thermostat set at a tempreture I always keep it at. I leave for work and I work overnights, so everyone's asleep.

When I return home the house is 20 degrees cooler, with the thermostat set at that temperature. ie. 56 flipping degrees, in a not so well insulated house in southern Texas in July.

Me: I told you, not to adjust the thermostat.
Him: I didn't.
Me: Yes you did. It was 76 when I left.
Him: You didn't see me adjust it, so therefore there's no way that you could know that I adjusted it, so therefore I did not adjust it.

FYI: there was no one else living in the house but us. 

[Avatar Of Belial]

What did you think that the penalty would be for breaking the 2-day rule?

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

Whether or not I agree with simply stopping the discussion because of this petty two-day-limit, technically, as soon as the two-day limit was hit, you lost. As soon as that limit was hit, you lost via the rules you agreed to at the beginning and any subsequent 'breaks' are after-the-fact.

You failed to post within the limit, causing your loss. Only after the loss did Piano make his second-in-a-row post, thus is didn't matter that he had violated a rule, you violated a rule first. So, technically, you did break it.

To be fair, however, I'm surprised that such a thing was held so strictly. I was always under the impression that debates (at least in this forum) were not for victors over losers, but for an examining of the information both sides bring to the table. The quality of said data not-withstanding, the debates should really be for the people who are still on the fence and may be following along, shouldn't they?