Adnan Rashid vs. James White - Trinity and Shirk

I have to be honest and admit, I could barely watch this debate. Adnan is another "stage performer debater" or quite simply "a showman" like all the most popular Muslim Dawahgandists.

He talks loudly, with breaking rapport and with irrational certainty and a non-anchored vast dynamic range. How many times does one have to repeat "Dr White" or "Ladies and Gentlemen"? He comes across as rude, arrogant, aggressive and most importantly insincere, he clearly wants his Muslim brothers to come out thinking he has accomplished a mighty victory rather than just sitting down and having a genuine conversation. This is the same mentality illustrated by the deceased Deedat and still to this day Zakir Naik.

This enough alone is to discard this incoherent, rambling shambles. Honestly I can't believe I use to take the time to listen to every last nonsense speaker and debate similar to this. How does Sam Shamoun do it? Knowing Sam I know there is almost nothing he hasn't seen, but I must confess I am slacking behind these days, I use to only do one thing, that was living my life evaluating arguments and researching. Now this is a perfect example why this isn't necessary. Because people like Adnan don't give a dam about any of that, they are more interested in getting the high from defeating an opponent.

Now I don't think James White is perfect, but I must admit there are just some apologists like Bassam Zawadi and James White who actually seem to "interact"and actually don't come across as showmen. The other peculiar thing is White comes across as passionate, but it does seem Adnan brings out the more aggressive side in Dr White, why is another reason Adnan should not be given any status. For some it's about the argument, for others it's about performance skills and the great feeling of winning over the opponent. Of course adding the "religious complex" only makes it worse, these faith-found illiterate masses think they are exalting and working for the grand designer, as if garbage like this would impress such a being?

Besides the obvious Adnan had no clue how to cope with the time restraints, and he simply didn't study basic Christian beliefs before debating. For example he represented Christianity as believing Jesus is "a God" when Jesus "Has a God". Such a basic fundamental error alone is enough to discredit this huckster and fraud.

Finally note how the actual topic was hardly discussed .Shirk is obviously an Islamic concept thus it's necessary to prove that "partners sharing the being of Allah" is equivalent to "persons". It's quite obvious "partners" refers to gods or entities outside the being of Allah, thus the Quran doesn't mention the "being" of Allah. It's also necessary to prove that Allah not only doesn't have a son in the physical sense (as described in the Quran) but it must be proven God cannot have a divine son whose eternal generation is derived from Allah. In conclusion the fundamental suppositions of the debate are not even contested or explicitly dealt with.