Sigh What a shame, though I had a feeling you wouldn’t observe (which concerns the sense “sight” in matters of science by the way) fairness in assessing our discourse so I guess I’ll just have to do it myself: my very first post on this whole page was me putting forward a claim about the BBT and weighing it up with a comment about Creation. It was a simple statement of mine that was not directed at any particular person on this page. A certain individual, in seeing what I’d written, made the decision to respond to what I wrote by putting forward a counter-claim to contradict my own, officially making him an opponent of my comment. In reading his side, the responsibility then fell on me to counteract his points to develop my own, however in making his counter claim, the responsibility was already on him to explain and prove to me WHY my original statement was false as he stated it was. Following these initial contradictions, the responsibility also fell to my new opponent in how any possible thread between us would take shape: he CHOSE to pick out points of mine and respond to them so naturally I set about doing the same with his. A discussion of any kind doesn’t become a discussion before someone decides to COUNTERACT someone else’s comment, making my opponent chiefly responsible for our discourse beginning. There was a burden on both sides, not one as your first comment seems to suggest.

Secondly, whether I am new to this debating forum or a seasoned member is immaterial, though if you are acquainted with his debating style well enough to say that what occurred between him and I is typical, then you would have known to interject in support of me (not necessarily my arguments) well in advance, particularly given my next point. By that I am referring to your use of the term “ad hominem”. Now, near the end of your last comment you state that you “regularly call out people for insulting or employing ad hominem, even if you agree with their arguments”.

Based on what you said earlier this is perhaps the biggest contradiction you could have given me; the reason being that if I take your behaviour in all of this and weigh it up with this revelation of yours then it reveals either one of two things, either you: A) actually support the use of ad hominem in intellectual debates or B) do not understand it's meaning enough to recognise it when you see it. Initially I would have been inclined to believe the latter but still let me define it for you and all to see: ‘AD HOMINEM’ is a Latin phrase which relates to “personal (abusive) attacks upon the opponent rather than their arguments”. Near the beginning of your last comment you claimed that in spite of my former opponent insulting me “ironically I was the one employing ad hominem”; on that basis, squaring this accusation with your quote in the aforementioned paragraph, you technically should have had no qualms in “calling me out” on my alleged use of this in your first few exchanges with me, particularly as I am new to you. Despite this you did nothing of the sort – all of your prior exchanges with me have either been in challenging my arguments (and I gave you what you asked for too) or acknowledging that rather my former opponent was in the wrong for his overt behaviour towards me. Even so, taking the debate itself that occurred principally between him and me that you said you followed, your latest post provides no evidence that I was employing ad hominem at any stage throughout my discourse with him; my actions were in criticising his arguments’ weak logic, NOT in name calling or outright slander.

In razor sharp contrast my former opponent, as we have BOTH acknowledged, soon peppered his arguments with insults. I was the only one who called him out on this to shift it back to the “intellectual discussion” at hand until his abuse climaxed in his last two posts, making it impossible for me to take anything else he had to say seriously. Though you did not, at any stage, interject to call him out on this, you do say that you “stopped doing it with him because it is pointless and he simply likes being crass sometimes”. It is this last comment that leads me to think that my A) point is more correct. You see, if I knew somebody’s debating style consisted of using that discourteous technique and I had regularly intervened to stop it and they didn’t, that would indicate to me the strength of their debating ability and the kind of person they are. However, the fact that you could know the typical behaviour of such a person, (who barely provided concrete evidence to hold his arguments together in response to my questions and as a result became increasingly abusive) and yet still excuse them shows that you are clearly willing to overlook insults (and evidence) in staunch favour of a fellow supporter (however wrong their behaviour and/or weak their arguments) to the extent of attempting to project such unjust behaviour onto the guiltless party, for I cannot be held guilty of anything beyond putting my arguments across. Therefore, your claims that you are in agreement with my take on the matter cannot be true and are as empty as his refutes against my arguments, evidencing just how alike you are in disposition.

In loyalty to your kindred spirit I also noticed that you conveniently left out ALL of the evidence I did put to him in response to his requests. I would tell you to go back and look again but I know you aren’t going to so best leave that to those with a more impartial eye. Instead you have chosen to select points of mine that not only challenge the BBT process itself but also entreat him to provide me with evidence to support many of his claims, one being that "the Bible is missing information" by also weighing up my points. I was able to reference both the BBT process and my own standpoint of the Bible and weigh both accounts together (a key aspect of any debate), yet my former opponent could do neither when I challenged him to.

Finally, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference whether he felt my arguments were baseless or that I ventured into a rabbit hole that went deep into the depths of the earth: the fact remains that he could not civilly and successfully refute my arguments with evidence supporting his BBT standpoint and so resorted to the low depths that he did (ad hominem), tarnishing his credibility in the process - a mark of very poor debating skill; the fact that you could not highlight evidence for his many unsubstantiated claims proves this. Moreover, if he managed to allow his temper to creep in and colour his language I don’t see how I’m being unjust in merely highlighting it (especially as he himself did not deny it) after 4 days experience with him, nor can I help it if he is unable to handle the innocuous challenge of a debate. At that, I have nothing more to say on the subject; I wanted somewhat to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can see I’m merely flogging a dead horse. You’ve proven nothing to me except that I need to end this here and instead use my time more constructively by debating with REAL intellectuals worthy of respect and who respect me.

P.S. Next time someone’s argument makes you laugh, take care not to laugh too hard – you may wind up having a much more unfortunate accident than a spilled drink.