July 9, 2012
My dedicated hater twimfanboy has made the following statement:
If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on.
Of course, twimfanboy arbitrarily declared that the topic in question didn’t “cut the mustard,” so this thread is dedicated to any topic of twimfanboy’s choice. You, dear readers, can decide whether the engagement is legitimate or not (provided twimfanboy accepts the gauntlet he threw out).
April 23, 2012
I imagine nobody really cares too much about this—then again, the thread in question received over 120 comments so maybe I’m wrong—but either way there are some things that need to be clarified about the recent fiasco with JT Eberhard. First I’d like to post all of our emails that I could find:
April 19, 2012
What would JT do? Well, suppress intelligent dissent just like the others who couldn’t hang. I don’t get it. Here we have a self-touted “freethinker” who feels the need to resort to censoring rational inquiry. I tried to leave a comment on JT’s blog, to no avail. So, I guess I’m banned.
“Free speech,” they cry at the top of their lungs any other day.
“Unless of course it comes from an intelligent dissenter,” reads the subtext.
Eh, oh well. I’m going to follow through on my end of the engagement anyways. Meaning, I’m going to publish a systematic dismantling of JT’s arguments just as I would have had he not scurried off with his tail between his legs. I guess in their world it’s only acceptable to be “confrontational” or “annoying” if you’re an atheist, eh?
April 18, 2012
So JT Eberhard has agreed to an exchange. We are still working out the details of the exchange, but I’d like to go ahead and post everything we’ve exchanged in our emails so far, creating an absolutely transparent public record of all dialog (because it’s a good practice in general, but also to give a certain hater even less to hate on). It began with this post on JT’s blog, where he said he was looking for “someone to exchange emails with on the existence of God.” I shot him an email, and here was his first response:
Accepted (was hoping for you or Jayman). If we’re doing the existence of God, you wanna go first?
March 10, 2012
I’ve realized something in this latest fiasco with the judges in DBT01. I now understand why Vox, Spacebunny, et al. accused me of “entering into” the PZ Myers Memorial Debate. Technically, I did interact with the arguments more than simple judging required. Although there was no conscious intent to do so, that doesn’t change the fact. This became apparent when Matt DeStefano did the same thing in his writeup of my opening statement. He interacted with my arguments from Leviticus:
March 1, 2012
I mostly approve of Peter’s closing statement, but I would like to clarify a few things. The rest of this post won’t make much sense unless you read his closing statement first. I’d like to commend Peter for confronting the shortcomings of his definition of “needless suffering” head-on, among other things.
Out with the old, in with the new, right? We have Daniel as one confirmed (Christian) judge, and I’ve sent out a few calls to others (though I fully understand if nobody wants to touch DBT02 with a ten-foot-pole). What, dear audience, are you interested in seeing us debate (and by “us” I mean either Peter Hurford and I, or any other willing party)?
I can’t stomach the thought of waking up to this mess another day, so I’m making an executive decision: DBT01 is officially over. I’m no longer interested in continuing. Call it a forfeit, call it a loss, call it whatever you want. The judges awarded Round 1 to Peter (they gave him 3 perfect scores). Neither Matt nor Daniel awarded me a full score, so we don’t need to wait for Andrés to post his score. I lose. DBT01 is in the history books.
February 29, 2012
Well, I’m sick of waiting for consensus so I’m moving forward, with or without everybody or anybody. As far as an explanation of the hold up, here’s my take.
February 22, 2012
This is just a brief announcement. I’ll explain in detail later.