|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2011 : 03:46:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Speaking of which, is the 1000$ back on the line, since we are going to be *debating* n'all? |
Are we? I thought I still wasn't allowed to respond directly to any of your evidence. If I'm allowed to respond to it, then, yes, I'll gladly put back up the $1000.
| I gotta to hand it to you though Kingdavid. Once you saw what was being posted you took immediate action, stomping your feet about what you feel is or isn't evidence |
Huh? What counts as evidence was clearly stated in the OP. The only thing I agreed to change was the definitions of things like "baptized" and "resurrected", which I would leave to the SFN members, per their request. We're here because ChangingMyself said she could meet my challenge and didn't want me to move the goalposts once we started. I had no idea she wanted to remove the goalposts altogether. |
 |
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 04:16:45 [Permalink]
|
| So what's the hold up? If the 1000$ isn't going back on the line on the grounds that you remain silent, can me and change get back to business? You violated this agreement the last time by indirectly responding to my images and the egyptian texts that I cited. If there are any new terms regarding evidence -- if you've discussed the currently posted evidence with the judges -- you've violated the agreement, because that, in effect, is responding to the evidence. If you're going to do that, let's get the 1000$ back on the table. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 04:59:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
So what's the hold up? If the 1000$ isn't going back on the line on the grounds that you remain silent, can me and change get back to business? You violated this agreement the last time by indirectly responding to my images and the egyptian texts that I cited. If there are any new terms regarding evidence -- if you've discussed the currently posted evidence with the judges -- you've violated the agreement, because that, in effect, is responding to the evidence. If you're going to do that, let's get the 1000$ back on the table.
|
If I can directly respond to the evidence, and we go with the challenge as stated in the OP (minus the strict definitions, of course), then I will gladly put the $1000 back on the table. But that's for ChangingMyself to decide, not you. And I have not discussed any of your evidence with the judges. The only one I've spoken to outside of this forum is Dave W in regards to the rules, and he's welcome to confirm that I did not address any pieces of evidence. |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 05:01:23 [Permalink]
|
| So much for Tracer and thier astronomical claims. I've just refuted them once and for all ( WITH IMAGES ) on this southern crux issue over on Hercules' thread. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 09:43:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
[quote]If I can directly respond to the evidence, and we go with the challenge as stated in the OP (minus the strict definitions, of course), then I will gladly put the $1000 back on the table. But that's for ChangingMyself to decide, not you. And I have not discussed any of your evidence with the judges. The only one I've spoken to outside of this forum is Dave W in regards to the rules, and he's welcome to confirm that I did not address any pieces of evidence.
|
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, so I would not recommend putting your money at stake. I hope you are being given ample opportunity to refute their claims. The way I read the rules was that you were not going to be able to refute. I hope I misunderstood. Have you considered how much bias will be in the votes here?
And, only one person should be able to give evidence for each side. 3 vs. 1 doesn't make sense. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 10:06:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Originally posted by KingDavid8
[quote]If I can directly respond to the evidence, and we go with the challenge as stated in the OP (minus the strict definitions, of course), then I will gladly put the $1000 back on the table. But that's for ChangingMyself to decide, not you. And I have not discussed any of your evidence with the judges. The only one I've spoken to outside of this forum is Dave W in regards to the rules, and he's welcome to confirm that I did not address any pieces of evidence.
|
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, so I would not recommend putting your money at stake. I hope you are being given ample opportunity to refute their claims. The way I read the rules was that you were not going to be able to refute. I hope I misunderstood. Have you considered how much bias will be in the votes here?
And, only one person should be able to give evidence for each side. 3 vs. 1 doesn't make sense.
|
Dave hasn't even posted the rules yet. Both he and I are in agreement on a fairly traditional formal debate format, so yeah, KingDavid8 will be able to present his case and there will be room for rebuttals on both sides. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 10:08:15 [Permalink]
|
| Hear that Changingmyself: Kingdavid's in "hostile territory". We're going to have find a more suitable venue... |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 10:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, so I would not recommend putting your money at stake. |
Really? From what I've seen, skeptics have been quite hard on Zeitgeist. I have yet to see any skeptical site that's confirmed its claims, but many (including skeptic.com, webskeptic and Conspiracy Science) have debunked it. The only site I've seen "confirming" it is FreeThoughtNation, which is associated with Achara S, the main source behind Zeitgeist.
But thanks for the warning. I won't put my money at stake here. ChangingMyself says she doesn't care about the money anyways.
| I hope you are being given ample opportunity to refute their claims. The way I read the rules was that you were not going to be able to refute. I hope I misunderstood. Have you considered how much bias will be in the votes here? |
I got an e-mail earlier from Dave W. with a new suggestion for the rules, which I've agreed to (I've suggested one change, but if he denies it, I'll still go ahead). I don't know if the others have agreed to it yet, though. But per the new rules, they'll have 2 weeks to post all of their evidence, I'll have 2 weeks to respond, and then we'll each have one more response after that a week apart.
And, only one person should be able to give evidence for each side. 3 vs. 1 doesn't make sense.
|
I think it's just 2, ChangingMyself and Teched. Hercules isn't part of their group. I'm fine with 2 on 1. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 10:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Hear that Changingmyself: Kingdavid's in "hostile territory". We're going to have find a more suitable venue...
|
I'm fine here, if you are. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 11:27:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Baxter
Originally posted by KingDavid8
[quote]If I can directly respond to the evidence, and we go with the challenge as stated in the OP (minus the strict definitions, of course), then I will gladly put the $1000 back on the table. But that's for ChangingMyself to decide, not you. And I have not discussed any of your evidence with the judges. The only one I've spoken to outside of this forum is Dave W in regards to the rules, and he's welcome to confirm that I did not address any pieces of evidence.
|
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, so I would not recommend putting your money at stake. I hope you are being given ample opportunity to refute their claims. The way I read the rules was that you were not going to be able to refute. I hope I misunderstood. Have you considered how much bias will be in the votes here?
And, only one person should be able to give evidence for each side. 3 vs. 1 doesn't make sense.
|
Dave hasn't even posted the rules yet. Both he and I are in agreement on a fairly traditional formal debate format, so yeah, KingDavid8 will be able to present his case and there will be room for rebuttals on both sides.
|
Before Kingdavid posts any rules, I have to agree with them. The way I see it, this really is changing the rules in the middle of the game to what he agreed to begin with and if he has to do that, then in my opinion, he conceded.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 11:59:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Baxter
Originally posted by KingDavid8
[quote]If I can directly respond to the evidence, and we go with the challenge as stated in the OP (minus the strict definitions, of course), then I will gladly put the $1000 back on the table. But that's for ChangingMyself to decide, not you. And I have not discussed any of your evidence with the judges. The only one I've spoken to outside of this forum is Dave W in regards to the rules, and he's welcome to confirm that I did not address any pieces of evidence.
|
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, so I would not recommend putting your money at stake. I hope you are being given ample opportunity to refute their claims. The way I read the rules was that you were not going to be able to refute. I hope I misunderstood. Have you considered how much bias will be in the votes here?
And, only one person should be able to give evidence for each side. 3 vs. 1 doesn't make sense.
|
Dave hasn't even posted the rules yet. Both he and I are in agreement on a fairly traditional formal debate format, so yeah, KingDavid8 will be able to present his case and there will be room for rebuttals on both sides.
|
Before Kingdavid posts any rules, I have to agree with them. The way I see it, this really is changing the rules in the middle of the game to what he agreed to begin with and if he has to do that, then in my opinion, he conceded.
|
Yes. You will have to agree on the rules. And that will all be worked out before the debate. We won't begin until all parties are in agreement on the rules. And we will be posting the rules. Not Kingdavid. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 12:39:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Before Kingdavid posts any rules, I have to agree with them. The way I see it, this really is changing the rules in the middle of the game to what he agreed to begin with and if he has to do that, then in my opinion, he conceded. |
I sent you a proposal this morning.
But we're not changing the rules to benefit KingDavid8, we're changing the rules to benefit our members, readers and us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 12:57:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by changingmyself
Before Kingdavid posts any rules, I have to agree with them. The way I see it, this really is changing the rules in the middle of the game to what he agreed to begin with and if he has to do that, then in my opinion, he conceded. |
I sent you a proposal this morning.
But we're not changing the rules to benefit KingDavid8, we're changing the rules to benefit our members, readers and us.
|
Sorry dave, I didn't mean to imply you or kil were changing the rules for david or me, I was saying I felt kingdavid was changing them from our original agreement which was on the Zeitgeist video.
I did look over what you had sent me and I will get back to you when I discuss them with teched. This actually sounds kind of fun instead of the normal debate. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 13:48:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
I did look over what you had sent me and I will get back to you when I discuss them with teched. This actually sounds kind of fun instead of the normal debate. |
Good! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 14:43:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
KingDavid8, you're in hostile territory, |
How so?
He wants skeptics to double-check the sources of the Zeitgeist movie, and wants us to judge the truth value of the claims made. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidence for Zeitgeist’s claims?
