Quote:
Originally Posted by electrolyte
marc is apparently now keeping a list of people who won't accept his challenge as is.
marc, I'm assuming that I'm on your list.
|
You're number 2, yes.
Quote:
|
If so, there'd better be a big Frickesque asterisk explaining that I refuse to play by your asinine rules.
|
I do not make rules. Moderators and judges do that. I make a resolution, and that resolution is debated, exactly like every other past formal debate on these forums. In the negotiation process by possible opponents, I agreed to drastic word changes, I agreed to "definitions" ,and discovered that it wasn't a negotiation process by possible opponents at all, it was BLUFF.
Quote:
|
Once more, if you were even the slightest bit interested in a meaningful debate, you'd come up with guidelines that both made sense and were acceptable to all parties involved. In the last challenge thread, I made proposals that you shot down without reason.
|
Reference what I "shot down" with a post number. I agreed to all your "proposals". I did ignore your request to make the debate about "biology" because I didn't use the word "biology" in the resolution. Evolution and biology are two different subjects, if I wanted to debate biology, I would have used the term biology.
Quote:
Nevertheless, I'll try again:
marc, if you can agree to the following definitions, I'll debate you on the resolution "Evolution is based upon and dependent upon atheistic principles."
evolution: change in genetic makeup of populations of organisms over generation(s)
atheistic principles: those principles necessarily requiring the nonexistence of any and all sorts of supernatural deity
If you don't like the definition of "evolution," then change the resolution. You might want to use "evolutionary theory" instead of "evolution."
If you don't like the definition of "atheistic principles," tough beans. That's what atheism means, contrary to your ludicrously unfettered labeling of damn near anything as "atheism." As soon as you start calling Catholics "atheists" again, the debate will stop in its tracks.
|
Would you not be able to call it to the judge's attention if I called Catholics atheists? I think you're bluffing again - if you don't want to do the debate
like every other past debate has been done on these forums, tough beans for you. I don't feel like putting a judge and moderator through all the additional complications that "definitions" will cause, especially since I now believe that after going to all the trouble to do that, you'd just run away or move the goalposts yet again. I put dictionary.com's list of definitions for evolution up in
this thread, post #51, and you and yours ran, remember? Do you remember number 4 from that list?
Why couldn't you display your case for definitions
in the debate? Answer that question please. Why do you insist on stacking the deck - handcuffing the judge, with definitions? "Evolution" is a broad term and you know it.