VitaMan erroneously claimed that the victor's claims, at least two things the victor brought up, were "completely rebutted." However, a review of the ECCIE thread "Religion and time" indicates that this was not what happened. Grok provided a thorough assessment based on images of the entire thread; it wasn't able to thoroughly review the actual thread. Grok provided a humbler description of VitaMan's performance that contradicted what VitaMan implied of his own performance as well as that of mine.
VitaMan: The 2 items you keep repeating ad nauseam have been completely rebutted.
Not a single thing that I've argued on the thread has been rebutted. Not completely, not partially. Not a single person, among the opposition, directly addressed what I argued, everyone evaded my argument and advanced strawman and other fallacies.
VitaMan: What is being discussed here is a belief held by someone for what they have never seen, and for which they have no evidence. Completely different from your rigged question.
What was being argued here, not "discussed," was your insistence that lack of evidence of God constituted God's not existing. Had this been about your belief in something for which there was "no evidence", you would not have brought up events that called God's existence into question.
To wit:
"There is no evidence anywhere of any God. If there is one, it didn't help the dinosaurs out when they went extinct. In the Jewish religion God only helped out the Jews.....while the earth was full of other humans." - VitaMan
"If there is one" speaks volumes and supposes that "there is none." Your conditional statement clearly insinuated your position that God didn't exist; evidence or no evidence of his existence became irrelevant the moment you made that statement. You implied that if God existed, he would've helped the dinosaurs. Ergo, the dinosaurs were not helped, therefore God "does not exist."
VitaMan: These 2 items are probably what saved you in your previous 23 years of debating.
Nope, no "saving" needed. In every argument I got involved in over the past nearly 23 years, I won armed with massive amounts of knowledge and experience against an opposition that had little to no knowledge of the debate topic. I thoroughly debunked those who debated me during this time, including you. This is a major reason to why I don't debate a topic unless it is clear that I have more than sufficient debate topic knowledge against an opposition that clearly demonstrates a lack of relevant knowledge.
VitaMan: Not this time.
I won our argument against you, and against the others who argued on that thread, with a straight cut victory. I presented a fact based, reasoned, logical argument against your failure to either defend your arguments or prove mine "wrong." You zero on the two items, but those were not the only items that I used to defeat you. You dodged one of those items, and failed to connect the other to debate standing. Everything I said in response to you debunked your arguments.
Your failure to answer my question per the parameters I set was a clear indication that you lost the argument but refused to acknowledge it.
But wait! There's more!
You went from this:
"There is no evidence anywhere of any God. If there is one, it didn't help the dinosaurs out when they went extinct. In the Jewish religion God only helped out the Jews.....while the earth was full of other humans." - VitaMan
To this:
"I don't believe I stated there is no God. If I did it needs to be corrected." -VitaMan
This is a sharp contrast from your "if there is one," a.k.a., if there was God. This marks a clear shift in your initial argument towards the argument that I made.
How you stack up against the others I've debated over the past 23 years:
Your debate performance places you behind most of the people I've argued against over these past 23 years. Imagine, if you will, a group of runners. You have the fast runners in the front, then most runners in the middle, and then you'd have the stragglers who keep getting overlapped. Your performance placed you among the stragglers. Most of the people who I debated against argued better than you did. They still lost, but not as bad as you. You lost... BAD.
Your last two responses were nothing but a narcissistic driven temper tantrum. It spoke more towards your anger issues, control issues, and ego issues than it did on how I performed in this debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment