Let me say, you are not the first Muslim I am debating and by no means you can not be the last too. I have been with FFI long before you ever came to know of this site. I have had many one-on-one debates with many Muslims in FFI and various other forums too where I am active though not as active as I am in FFI. I know the tactics of Muslims well through the experience of debating with them. And by no means you are not even remote to being exceptional. But if to say on you, I have come across more sore tactless Muslim debaters less rotten than you. This is the impression you left on me.
See what you wrote here:
This one caught my eye and do you remember me reminding you to not to shoot on your foot? But you did it here and what a pathetic…, The above tells it all about your current acrobatics. You want to deflect this debate which is more than taxing to you after my rebuttal to your posts. You want to save your face by deflecting this to a debate of stipulating rules for debates. And the worst of all you believe like all delusional Muslims your tactic is going to work. But FFI is the wrong place my dear contester. And let me say you have the wrong man at the other end. In the old forum, I have debated one-on-one with many Muslims and one of them is an apostate now. That to say, the tactic you are trying to evade this contest may work for you but NOT for the readers here who are a mixed group. There are Muslims and non-Muslims surfing this forum and from the few comments they made on this debate, you should have been aware (if your reasoning has not completely gone) what an image you left for them to have unlimited fun.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: And don't be so impatient, it might take us some time to discuss the terms and conditions of the debate, which may constitute a debate in its own right, and eventually return to the topic. If you think you are on truth, these must be small matters to you.
So what is your next aim BOT1? Or what do you want me to do? To address the post which betrayed you? Okay, I am going to do it, but not in hope that you will ever address the real issue. Your fright to address my posts is palpable for everyone. And I am not someone who is going to delve in delusional hopes of having an afterlife where a god seated upstairs is going to help me having orgies with high bosomed virgins.
But remember, this will be the last time I am addressing the issues pertaining to the rules of this debate. Rough end of the pineapples; to make me laugh again, I saw in the comment section you are answering to someone that you always made the last post in the thread so you always emerged victorious against him. Dear man… making the last post is not going to make you victorious in a debate. You are below elementary in this case. Far more disappointing…! I have let some of my opponents to make last posts in this forum and some other forums too but some of them were honest enough to admit that did not do them any good and I had good points. A debate is viewed and analyzed on the overall performance of participants. It is reviewed who bring forth logical arguments and wins over the opponent by logical refutations. NOT by who is going to make the last presentation.., when was the last time you had a level-head to think and approach matters realistically?
Let me address the post which you says will decide the future of this debate and take this from me, this will perhaps be my last post on issues that is not pertaining to the central theme of this debate. That is to say; your aversion tactic by lengthening it is not going to work at all;
Why? What makes you bring up this issue of rules of the debates after debate has moved to a good extent? Should not this have to do a lot with my response to you which I spread out as five parts? (It was to entertain readers as lengthy posts will often get ignored by casual readers)Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:I am glad you brought this up early in your post. Because we'll have to settle it first before moving to actual debate.
Again what makes you bring up this in the middle when we have traveled to a good extent with the debate? I know you are willing to debate and you participated in the debate I created in Exclusive Rooms. You answered to my opening post and after my rather comprehensive rebuttal; all of a sudden you are becoming aware of some rules..! What is this phenomenon?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:I am absolutely willing to debate you and correct the many wrong conceptions you hold and disseminate about Islam.
You can be a good comedian because your bluff triggers laughter. Man…, what holds you back if you are so confident in Demolishing (My goodness..!!) my arguments? Why do you want and what heck of reason I should believe ‘you can’t wait to do it’ when in fact what you try is looking for routes of escape?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:I have read in full your latest response and believe it wouldn't take a moment's thought to demolish it all, as far as I am concerned. I can't wait to do it, believe you me.
There is nothing to project now because the damage is already done in your case. You don’t want to pretend more to make matters worse for you.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Don't try to project as if I trying to evade this debate. I am not at all interested in it, if the debate functions in the proper manner.
Huh…. You are so concerned of winning a debate? Why are you obsessed with it? Your above post sells out this weakness of yours too. FYI, there can not be winners or losers in a debate. At the end of the day, all are winners because a fruitful debate, a productive reciprocation will offer chances to contestants and viewers the opportunity to learn something. So, technically even if one loses a debate that is a negligible loss because he should have won to learn a lot of things through reciprocating.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:However, if principle dictates me that this debate should be terminated, I will terminate this debate immediately without worrying in the least about how loudly you can shout victory or what impression it leaves to the kind of readers you are impressed with (those posting in the comment thread).
That being said, I have debated with many in past and I never trumpeted of my victory over opponents mounting roofs. Therefore either you terminate this debate or stick with this is not going to affect me at all. I will be KhaliL FarieL known to all in this forum and necessarily in many other forums too where I am partaking like a part-time participant.
So what or what do you mean here? I am trying to move ahead with this debate and I need your active chipping in if I want to. I was just alerting you of terminating this debate will leave a bad impression on readers so you should continue. Does not it cut in the least? Okay, so what?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:So your painting a scenario about the upheaval that would supposedly follow upon my terminating this dialogue, about this grand battle between Islam and Kufr, doesn't cut it in the least.
Childish tactics..??? In what sense? What makes requesting you to continue with the dialogue a childish tactic? The silliest person turns out to be you who are trying to evade this contest by putting unnecessary prerequisites and as you admitted trying to evade the central theme by deflecting the discussion to something else.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:They are childish tactics on your part.
And nobody here will forget the fact these are coming out of you after you have moved along with me to a good extent. Why? What makes you threaten to terminate this debate at this juncture? Am I too good for you?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:If the terms of the debates are agreed by us, the debate will continue, and if the terms are not agreed or not upheld, the debate will be terminated. This is the ONLY factor which I would consider in determining the future of this debate.
Well, it can not be even called a mistake because it wasn’t that much necessary to stipulate rules. By default good debaters know the stipulations. The only clause of a logical debate is “there should not be any logical fallacies” It is the default canon.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:It was our mistake that we did not a priori discussed and agreed to the conditions of this debate. However, it's not too late.
NO. NOT at all. What constitutes logical fallacies is not a topic of debate, because there are no disagreements in philosophical tenets on this. You want to make debate out of all issues…, what a pathetic attempt again..,Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:In general, you are right that logical fallacies are unacceptable in a proper debate. However, what constitutes logical fallacies is also a topic of debate.
Really..? But why? We have engaged in the past in the old forum too. And we had been ferocious most of the times, and now all of a sudden you are coming up praising, eulogizing me to sky…!!!Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:When I agreed to debate with you, I saw the conduct you exhibited in other threads talking to me. However, in your first rebuttal to me in this thread, you showed a totally different conduct, from not only attacking my belief in inapporiate ways, but also employing street talk and all sorts of adolescent pranks.
Which came as a shock to me,
I presented my case here fairly well in the opening post, but the way you managed to answer it didn’t give me an impression you are looking for a serious contest but I admit that is not an excuse for me to compose a rather lazy response to it. But after your reminder, I shifted my mode drastically and answered your post in the most prolific manner without resorting to any logical fallacies. I omitted all of your ad hominem rants for the purpose and dead focused on refuting what you presented though there was very little of substance in your response for me to address.
Now, what is the big matter?
There you are; you warned me and I corrected my rather negligible mistake and glued to the topic and did without any fallacies. So what? Why should you again bring up this issue?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: however, I didn't terminate the debate because we didn't agree to the conditions beforehand. I however gave you a warning to change your conduct. Since you raise the above (and other) issues about this warning, it is important we should address it first.
Self respect is given. I did give you self respect but did not give any damn to the faith you adhered, because if you constrict me to not to attack your faith, that means you are thwarting me from the debate. And do you think I am going to comply with it?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: Now, it's not about being sensitive, it's about self-respect and principles.
I am sure you don’t even have a remote understanding of what constitutes logic and logical fallacies. Or tell me what does the above paragraph mean?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: You mentioned logical fallacies, They are those which prove a barrier to the smooth functioning of the debate, to divert attention, and to prove fallacious arguments in disemebling ways.
This is also include unnecessary offence.
How is it? I don’t get it at all. If you hold something sacred and holy to yourself, and when the debate is concerned of your beliefs; I can attack it and that does not amount to logical fallacy. Because I am attacking your beliefs not YOU in person; I did attack your faith in this debate but I refrained from attacking you in person after I stipulated the rule of “No logical fallacies”Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: If I hold something sacred and holy to me, you cannot desecrate it in word in a proper debate. Of course, what may constitute desecration for me might not be so to you, however, I am taking it objectively.
When I am discussing of the treatment of Jews (a certain group of religionists) in Islam, I have all rights to attack Islam which is sacred to you. You may only watch for whether I am attacking you as a person. Okay?