Open Debate Challenge

[For_The_Kingdom]

.

Again, this is an open challenge to anyone who'd be interested in partaking in a moderated audio and/or video debate with me on any of the following subjects..

Kalam Cosmological Argument
Modal Ontological Argument
Resurrection of Jesus
Validity of the New Testament
Validity of Naturalism (natural evolution [macro])

This challenge has been open for at least 2 years, and no one has stepped up yet. We can post the segment on this great forum for all to see.

Don't you all speak at once.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

Forget about it, bruh. The challenge shall remain open, until someone steps up to it. Until then..

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

Forget about it, bruh. The challenge shall remain open, until someone steps up to it. Until then..

What challenge?

Nobody knows what it is you want to debate.

The Resurrection of Jesus?

What about it?

Do the Gospel Rumors claim it happened. Yes they do.

Did it actually happen? Nobody has a clue, including you.

Did you want to argue that you have a clue while everyone else is clueless?

It's just not clear what you want to debate.

Christianity is a faith-based religion. Or haven't you heard?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

Forget about it, bruh. The challenge shall remain open, until someone steps up to it. Until then..

I think this is an appropriate time to LOL and SMH.

DI basically just accepted your debate challenge as long as you are willing to properly define the debate. Clearly you aren't willing to do so, thus you will remain sitting there with no one to debate.

FTK: Someone debate me on video!
DI: Sure, if you properly define the debate and I can hold an opposing debate position.
FTK: .... na, bruh, forget it.

The rest of us: LOL

[For_The_Kingdom]

I think this is an appropriate time to LOL and SMH.

Yeah, now more than ever.

DI basically just accepted your debate challenge as long as you are willing to properly define the debate.

Did he? He must of said it after he went on a tirade about how the arguments have already been debunked and how no one will waste their time debating me.

At that point, "defining the debate" becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

Clearly you aren't willing to do so

Oh yeah? And clearly you aren't willing to accept the challenge, and not because the topics aren't well-defined, either.

, thus you will remain sitting there with no one to debate.

That's fine. All I know is, if an atheist/unbeliever made an open challenge to debate me on those topics, he won't have to ask twice.

That is just me, though.

Others, however, would rather decline, refuse, make excuses, etc. But those same folks will participate in a "threaded" discussion which pertains to the very same topics that they are refusing to debate in A/V format.

Makes no sense whatsoever, and is mind boggling.

FTK: Someone debate me on video!
DI: Sure, if you properly define the debate and I can hold an opposing debate position.
FTK: .... na, bruh, forget it.

That is one heck of a condensed version of what happened. I'm sure it was much more to it than that. I'm positive.

The rest of us: LOL

Me too.

[benchwarmer]

DI basically just accepted your debate challenge as long as you are willing to properly define the debate.

Did he? He must of said it after he went on a tirade about how the arguments have already been debunked and how no one will waste their time debating me.

So you are admitting you didn't read his response?

Here, I'll quote it right here for you (bold added by me):

Or do you want to debate whether its premises are compatible with known physics? I'll take you up on the latter debate.

Or do you want to debate whether reality must conform to Modal Logic? I'll take you up on the latter debate.

Or do you want to debate whether there is any credible reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected without relying on the Gospel Rumors as a credible source of information? If so I'll take you up on that debate.

That's not one, not two, but THREE accepted debate topics if only you are willing to actually define what you want to debate and it is one of the specific items mentioned.

Clearly you don't want to define the debate parameters. I can only assume it's because you realize you wouldn't fare well in such a specific topic. It appears you are hoping to rely on an ill-defined debate topic and then hoping you can dazzle your opponent with what you think are fancy debate tactics. Good luck trying to get someone to fall for that.

[For_The_Kingdom]

DI basically just accepted your debate challenge as long as you are willing to properly define the debate.

Did he? He must of said it after he went on a tirade about how the arguments have already been debunked and how no one will waste their time debating me.

So you are admitting you didn't read his response?

I am admitting that after DI claimed that the arguments have already been debunked, and how it is a waste of time debating me; everything that was said after that is irrelevant and I am really not trying to hear what was said after that.

YOU read all of the fiddle faddle, not me.

Or do you want to debate whether its premises are compatible with known physics? I'll take you up on the latter debate.

Oh, so it isn't a waste of time debating me after all. Strange.

Or do you want to debate whether reality must conform to Modal Logic? I'll take you up on the latter debate.

Oh, so it isn't a waste of time debating me after all. Strange.

Or do you want to debate whether there is any credible reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected without relying on the Gospel Rumors as a credible source of information? If so I'll take you up on that debate.

Oh, so it isn't a waste of time debating me after all. Strange.

That's not one, not two, but THREE accepted debate topics if only you are willing to actually define what you want to debate and it is one of the specific items mentioned.

If this was said from the very beginning, instead of the fiddle faddle..then we wouldn't be 4 pages into the thread with no debate going on.

Clearly you don't want to define the debate parameters.

It aint rocket science. Obviously, I am arguing for the soundness/validity of the given arguments. Obviously, DI disagrees, and feels as if the arguments aren't sound/valid.

Thus, the debate.

It aint rocket science, it aint brain surgery. It ain't calculus or trigonometry.

I can only assume it's because you realize you wouldn't fare well in such a specific topic.

Well, the "specific" topic is, for example, the KCA. That is the specific topic.

If you need to get more specific than that, then like just said; I am arguing in favor of the soundness/validity of the given argument.

If you need more specification than that, then I can't help you.

It is amazing, because the one guy who blatantly refused to debate either topic, is the one assuming that I am purposely not doing X, because I know that I won't "fare well".

How about this; you didn't accept the challenge because you know that YOU wouldn't fare well. How about that?

It appears you are hoping to rely on an ill-defined debate topic and then hoping you can dazzle your opponent with what you think are fancy debate tactics. Good luck trying to get someone to fall for that.

Yeah, because you guys are so smart that you seen that coming a mileee away, huh. Can't pull one on you folks, right?

Please.