Thread: Black Hebrews
View Single Post
Old 06-13-2008, 10:58 AM   #58
WuLatino- MANGANI
Veteran Member
 
WuLatino- MANGANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 387
Rep Power: 7
WuLatino- MANGANI crouching tigerWuLatino- MANGANI crouching tiger
Default

"You also make a lot of ad hominem claims against me and I don't think you are the master of debate that you might perceive yourself to be."

-You cannot make ad-hominem claims against someone who has provided no facts because you have left only your beliefs to attack, and not any facts, figures, or scientific data. I have provided these, and you have not attacked my information rather my person. Not the same thing...

"* Can you provide a link to your arguments at www.debate.com? This is to prove that you have successfully debated with someone and that it contained the structured set up that you want."

-http://www.debate.com/Mangani - here you can examine my arguments, topics of debate, and comments made by voters. The site is not perfect, but it will provide a more structured environment where comments are not part of the debate, and voters can attack each other based on whether they are voting on the merits of the debate or their own beliefs.

"* I will not go debating religious issues on a website full of atheists and also I will not debate this issue of "were the ancient Hebrews black" to an audience of athiest whites. Does www.debate.com provide statistical details of the demographics of the members of its website?"

-I am pretty sure the majority of the world disagrees with you, but that is not the point. The voters can point out deficiencies in your arguments that you may not be aware of, as well as my own. The point of the website is to try to vote on the merits of the argument, and not your own opinion. I have voted against people I completely agree with because their arguments were ridiculous, and others have voted for me even if they disagree because my arguments have been better. I have lost debates that my opponent has conceded, so the site is not perfect (vers. 3 will take care of all these issues), but it's being worked on. The point is it is a better environment for a structured one on one debate.

"* I am not going to debate an argument that is unassailable to one debater. e.g. "Hitler was a good guy", "George W Bush is the most intelligent politician ever", "Saddam Hussein was a great leader" "

-We can agree on a debate, for one, and second, you don't have to accept a debate you don't like. If you want we can word your premise here, and the "resolved" statement to your liking. You are the "pro" here, so it's your premise.

"* Throw up a few general ideas and I'll take it from there. I'd also like to know what the response times are for each debater as I'm fairly busy with work at times."

-72 hours for each argument, and we can decide on a number of rounds (I think the max is either 5 or 7, but normally 3... it's up to you).

"* I am only going to debate a topic that we BOTH agree to debate."

-Like I said- it's your premise.
WuLatino- MANGANI is offline   Reply With Quote