Osama Review
Here are my thoughts on the two debates uploaded by Osama so far. Not necessarily on the content, because Osama is not much on substance, well, almost nothing.
The first debate he uploaded:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/06/osama-abdallah-vs-edward-delcore-on-is.html
Osama was annihilated. Especially Declore's first cross examination section, Osama was stumped, because he just repeats information that is copied and pasted off his website, yet his website doesn't actually bother to validate anything it asserts, other than making his words colorful, bold and large, as if that is some how effective?
I would like to honestly know a single lexical source that says "Son of God" in the Quran or Bible means "Righteous Servant". Especially when he says "The Quran defines it as" LOL. That must have been one of the biggest blunders.
The second debate:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/06/osama-abdallah-vs-edward-delcore-on-is.html
I don't really call this much of a debate, but more a Circus.
What is painfully clear and obvious to everyone but you Osama, is you are not a debater, nor should you ever try to be one. You can't even respect the basic etiquette and rules of a debate, let alone control your conduct. It is not acceptable to behave like a savage when you are invited to participate in seriously scholarly discussion Osama. It is not acceptable to call people "liars", "cowards", "pagans", "Infidels" and make repeated insults. It is not respectful to come to a debate unprepared and have no scholarly sources for claims you repeatedly make, e.g. EGO EIMI being "I was". At least come with some basic knowledge of the topic. You said you don't know English or Greek grammar, then how do you expect to know how EGO EIMI should be translated?
Maybe we should give you a list of do's and donts , you know what children get to learn even younger than 5.
No insulting. No name calling. No interrupting. No shouting, no yelling. No bringing up new arguments in the closing section. No talking over people, no disobeying the moderator. Follow the rules given by the moderator. No make up exuses like "I'm tired". No wasting peoples time, stay focused and on subject. Do not merely make "assertions", provide "evidence". Do not provide your own interpretation, provide EXEGESIS. Stick to the topic. Do not make wild irrelevant rants, do not ramble, do not make red herrings. And for God sake DON'T ACT AS IF A CROSS EXAMINATION IS A REBUTTAL SECTION AND A CLOSING STATEMENT IS A CHANCE TO BRING UP NEW INFORMATION.
The funniest part of the debate which I believe caused the thump created by Rogers.. and the laughter in the audience by Shamoun was when Osama proclaimed himself one of some pioneers defending the Quran against charges of bestiality. I literally was laughing out loud, I'm sure it would of been even more funnier and dazzling in person. If only the audience knew what a shit talker Osama is. lol
Besides Osama needing to give up his debate career and cocky attitude (albeit all bark and no bite), I honestly wish him the best and hope he actually makes some improvement before he dies.
The first debate he uploaded:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/06/osama-abdallah-vs-edward-delcore-on-is.html
Osama was annihilated. Especially Declore's first cross examination section, Osama was stumped, because he just repeats information that is copied and pasted off his website, yet his website doesn't actually bother to validate anything it asserts, other than making his words colorful, bold and large, as if that is some how effective?
I would like to honestly know a single lexical source that says "Son of God" in the Quran or Bible means "Righteous Servant". Especially when he says "The Quran defines it as" LOL. That must have been one of the biggest blunders.
The second debate:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/06/osama-abdallah-vs-edward-delcore-on-is.html
I don't really call this much of a debate, but more a Circus.
What is painfully clear and obvious to everyone but you Osama, is you are not a debater, nor should you ever try to be one. You can't even respect the basic etiquette and rules of a debate, let alone control your conduct. It is not acceptable to behave like a savage when you are invited to participate in seriously scholarly discussion Osama. It is not acceptable to call people "liars", "cowards", "pagans", "Infidels" and make repeated insults. It is not respectful to come to a debate unprepared and have no scholarly sources for claims you repeatedly make, e.g. EGO EIMI being "I was". At least come with some basic knowledge of the topic. You said you don't know English or Greek grammar, then how do you expect to know how EGO EIMI should be translated?
Maybe we should give you a list of do's and donts , you know what children get to learn even younger than 5.
No insulting. No name calling. No interrupting. No shouting, no yelling. No bringing up new arguments in the closing section. No talking over people, no disobeying the moderator. Follow the rules given by the moderator. No make up exuses like "I'm tired". No wasting peoples time, stay focused and on subject. Do not merely make "assertions", provide "evidence". Do not provide your own interpretation, provide EXEGESIS. Stick to the topic. Do not make wild irrelevant rants, do not ramble, do not make red herrings. And for God sake DON'T ACT AS IF A CROSS EXAMINATION IS A REBUTTAL SECTION AND A CLOSING STATEMENT IS A CHANCE TO BRING UP NEW INFORMATION.
The funniest part of the debate which I believe caused the thump created by Rogers.. and the laughter in the audience by Shamoun was when Osama proclaimed himself one of some pioneers defending the Quran against charges of bestiality. I literally was laughing out loud, I'm sure it would of been even more funnier and dazzling in person. If only the audience knew what a shit talker Osama is. lol
Besides Osama needing to give up his debate career and cocky attitude (albeit all bark and no bite), I honestly wish him the best and hope he actually makes some improvement before he dies.
"Tommy from EDL is Racist." - Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and it's true!
I think this audience must have been pet trained at a now intellectually defunct, financially bankrupt home made school sponsored by the highly irrational inconsistent ex-MDI president and member Paul Williams who is noterious for using similar tactics such as shouting down his opponents and making seeming irrelevant red herrings, appeals to authority etc.
"RACIST, RACIST, RACIST!", is what passes off as News and Views these days.
The audience would need to define the specific way they define racism, and show definitive proof that Tommy has made comments that match this definition, all of which not even one parcipant even attempts to do save the moderator (who at least tried to provide evidence but no defintiion).
Tommy asks "where is your substance?" Precisely!
The only attempt to even deal with any substance was by the man from the other protest-group. At least he tries to engage Tommy about the protests rationally.
The brown lady and white lady with glasses at the front made no arguments, just appeal to emotion, the kid at the back made an ad-hom about "being out of touch with reality" and a Muslimah complained about being shunned on a bus seat, (what on?). And three other people talked about what causes racism without offering any evidence for their assertions about causation or offering any conclusive proof that Tommy is racist! Not even a single panelist sensationalist or audience participant could show how Tommy was a bigot or racist.
Tommy understandably was frustrated, and maybe a little nervous being the only person defending his position.
I was disappointed with Tommy on one note, he blames this all on salafi extremists. The problem is not one particular version of Islam. Saudi Arabians and Afghans are not the only extreme version of Islam, try taking a look at the Islamic world. Islamic jurisprudence is the problem.
There is no version of Islam that says "do not kill apostates", "do not behead witches", if any version of Islam that is inconsistent with Islamic values exists, it is not Islam. Simple really, isn't it?
Islam or Islams?
I'm not saying there is no room for differences of opinion in Islam. I am saying Religion without religious guidance and instruction (aka Sharia Law in the case of Islam) is an oxymoron.
Further more if there really is multiple Islams, then take a vigorous illuminating endeavor throughout all the extreme elements that bond and unite them (lack of human rights) and object to that as "Islamic violations".
Tommy is a good man and am I am very impressed, that such an ordinary working bloke has learned and developed his knowledge of politics and Islam. I encourage this lad to keep growing and perpetually continue to study. Never give up Tommy, you are born to be great.
Ray Comfort vs Aron Ra - Creationism/Evolution
Both speakers engage in topic switching, red herring, strawmen, definitely a rookie convo. Obviously Comfort shouldn't even be in a debate about Evolution. AronRa is a more of a scientist than a philosopher which means it's easy for any Christian philosopher to pick holes in almost anything he says.
Only showing this for entertainment, and perhaps a step into what my life in 2002 may have looked like (had this kind of mindset).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)