The Resurrection

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

The Resurrection

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher and Zzyzx have agreed to debate the topic Did the claimed resurrection of Jesus happen literally and physically?" (in the real world)
Zzyzx wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:I accept #2 with "resurrection" as the topic -- five posts each -- closely monitored H2H (to prevent personal comments and unsupported assertions). Perhaps the topic should be "Did the claimed resurrection of Jesus happen literally and physically?" (in the real world)

If you are willing and able, I am willing to open the topic in H2H with suggested "rules of engagement" to be discussed (prior to the five official posts).
A total of ten posts. The following pattern is preferable to me, if you consent we will follow it:

Round 1:

Post 1: WinePusher Presents Evidence for the Resurrection
Post 2: Zzyzx Presents Rebuttal
Post 3: WinePusher Presents Rebuttal To The Rebuttal
Post 4: Zzyzx Presents Final Rebuttal

Round 2:

Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice
Post 6: WinePusher Presents Rebuttal
Post 7: Zzyzx Presents Rebuttal to The Rebuttal
Post 8: WinePusher Presents Final Rebuttal

Round 3:

Post 9: WinePusher presents concluding post summarizing why the Resurrection is equally, or better, supported than Zzyzx's claim.
Post 10: Zzyzx presents concluding post summarizing why his claim is better supported than the Resurrection or why the Resurrection probabaly did not occur in reality.
I accept the pattern and the topic as stated with no further qualification.

I further propose that:

1) The bible be considered NOT authoritative regarding claims of truth (only as source of what is claimed).

2) All claims and assertions be supported or formally retracted

3) NO personal comments of any kind

4) A time limit be agreed for response (possibly 3 or 5 days)
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #11

Post by Zzyzx »

.
As per strict adherence to debate agreement "Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice Post 6: WinePusher Presents Rebuttal", I present the Historical claim of my choice:

On August 6, 1945 Hiroshima, Japan was struck by an atomic bomb.

I accept this as a truthful and accurate statement of the event mentioned and cite a wide range of disconnected sources that report the event.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki
http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldw ... oshima.htm
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org/Facts ... ombing.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/bombing-o ... d-nagasaki
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/bombing- ... asaki.html
http://www.educationforjustice.org/reso ... saki-facts
http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/06/05/10 ... cks-facts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 72473.html
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... DE7Zvj5nrQ


Thousands of additional references from worldwide sources can be cited if there is any doubt that the event occurred. To the best of my knowledge there are no claims that the event did not occur.

I look forward to your rebuttal.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

WinePusher

Post #12

Post by WinePusher »

Round 2, Post 6
Zzyzx wrote:.
As per strict adherence to debate agreement "Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice Post 6: WinePusher Presents Rebuttal", I present the Historical claim of my choice:

On August 6, 1945 Hiroshima, Japan was struck by an atomic bomb.

I accept this as a truthful and accurate statement of the event mentioned and cite a wide range of disconnected sources that report the event.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki
http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldw ... oshima.htm
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org/Facts ... ombing.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/bombing-o ... d-nagasaki
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/bombing- ... asaki.html
http://www.educationforjustice.org/reso ... saki-facts
http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/06/05/10 ... cks-facts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 72473.html
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... DE7Zvj5nrQ


Thousands of additional references from worldwide sources can be cited if there is any doubt that the event occurred. To the best of my knowledge there are no claims that the event did not occur.

I look forward to your rebuttal.
Your participation in this thread is nothing short of a 'failure' Zzyzx. I, once again, invite readers to compare Zzyzx performance in this thread with McCulloch performance in the Sacred V. Secular Ancient Historical Evidence Thread. We have one non-christian who presents an argument in his own words, with corresponding evidence to support his argument. Then we have one non-christian who presents links, and can only argue by link because he possesses 'no evidence of knowledge or training in the field.' For future reference Zzyzx, head to head debates clearly are not your thing, and neither are debates over any issue dealing with history, so you should avoid them. Stick to playing with rocks instead, where you can assert at least some authority. And thank you for justifying what soon will become my signature: "Those who don't understand a subject will be forced to present links rather than original arguments, and won't have the capability to summarize what the links say." If you actually understand what the links say, summarize them. Nobody on here is obliged to read your links, they are only obliged to read what you say, as veteran member of this forum I would expect you to understand that by now. And please fix your links, or if you can't I'll ask a moderator to, your sloppiness in posting up these links seems to have ruined the thread and horizontally stretched it. Good Work.

Now, to address this claim. We're talking about Ancient History, and the example Zzyzx provides is a modern historical example. Zzyzx probably didn't know this because he has no "evidence of training or knowledge in the field" but I blame myself for not specifying it to him. I didn't need to specify it with a non-christian like McCulloch, but apparently I do with someone like Zzyzx. An Ancient Historical Example, if you cannot and/or are unwilling to do this I'm sure readers will understand why. Now, I will not dispute this event as something that didn't happen. But I will point out some contreversial factors that lie in this event to expose how ambuious history can be. The first one lies in motivation, and how history will judge this. Was the Allies justified in dropping nukes on Japan, and is Japan a victim in this, or did the Allies act to rashly and impulsively and did they ignore more peaceful routes that could have lead to Japans surrender?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #13

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Yes, WinePusher, you made a BIG blunder. I insist that we follow the pattern to which we agreed.

YOU wrote Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice. Does that say "ancient historical claim"???? Do not now try to coerce me into accepting terms that I did not accept.

Notice that you did NOT specify ancient history and I did NOT agree that my claim be ancient history. What you wrote is VERY clear -- "historical claim of his choice". I have made an historical claim of my choice (exactly as specified in our agreed pattern at the beginning of this debate).



Stop whining about your mistake while attempting to criticize Zzyzx for following the pattern to which we agreed. Mount your rebuttal -- after which you will be entitled to show how the "resurrection is equally or better supported than [my] claim".
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

WinePusher

Post #14

Post by WinePusher »

Round 2, Post 8
Zzyzx wrote:.
Yes, WinePusher, you made a BIG blunder. I insist that we follow the pattern to which we agreed.

YOU wrote Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice. Does that say "ancient historical claim"???? Do not now try to coerce me into accepting terms that I did not accept.

Notice that you did NOT specify ancient history and I did NOT agree that my claim be ancient history. What you wrote is VERY clear -- "historical claim of his choice". I have made an historical claim of my choice (exactly as specified in our agreed pattern at the beginning of this debate).



Stop whining about your mistake while attempting to criticize Zzyzx for following the pattern to which we agreed. Mount your rebuttal -- after which you will be entitled to show how the "resurrection is equally or better supported than [my] claim".
That's fine, you aren't able to defend an ancient historical event. That is a shortcoming on your part and demonstrates your failings, and readers will judge the reasons why you aren't able to. But again, you also aren't able to put up an argument. In debate, especially in a debate in this subforum, you seem to have been the only person to lazy to put up an argument of your own. You have been reduced to putting up links that I won't read. I am only obliged to read what you write, even if it is written poorly and sarcastically, and rebutt what you write. You have demonstrated you don't have the motivation to write arguments, you have demonstrated that all you can do is google and copy and paste links. Maybe you yourself should observe the debate style of non-christians such as McCulloch and Abraxas to improve your own debate style.

By the way, it appears you ahve trouble following the format you agreed to so let me make it clear. The next post is mine, not yours. Got it?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #15

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:Yes, WinePusher, you made a BIG blunder. I insist that we follow the pattern to which we agreed.

YOU wrote Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice. Does that say "ancient historical claim"???? Do not now try to coerce me into accepting terms that I did not accept.

Notice that you did NOT specify ancient history and I did NOT agree that my claim be ancient history. What you wrote is VERY clear -- "historical claim of his choice". I have made an historical claim of my choice (exactly as specified in our agreed pattern at the beginning of this debate).

Stop whining about your mistake while attempting to criticize Zzyzx for following the pattern to which we agreed. Mount your rebuttal -- after which you will be entitled to show how the "resurrection is equally or better supported than [my] claim".
That's fine, you aren't able to defend an ancient historical event.
Correction: I did not AGREE to defend an ancient historical event and you did not ask that I do so. Read what you wrote.

WinePusher wrote:That is a shortcoming on your part and demonstrates your failings,
The first line of my signature applies here.
WinePusher wrote:and readers will judge the reasons why you aren't able to. But again, you also aren't able to put up an argument.
Correction: I put up EXACTLY the argument to which I agreed -- and you now seem to be whining about.

You made a big mistake in NOT specifying "ancient history". However, you ARE good for your word, aren't you? Do do according to what you say, don't you? You are responsible for your own mistakes, aren't you?
WinePusher wrote:In debate, especially in a debate in this subforum, you seem to have been the only person to lazy to put up an argument of your own. You have been reduced to putting up links that I won't read. I am only obliged to read what you write, even if it is written poorly and sarcastically, and rebutt what you write. You have demonstrated you don't have the motivation to write arguments, you have demonstrated that all you can do is google and copy and paste links. Maybe you yourself should observe the debate style of non-christians such as McCulloch and Abraxas to improve your own debate style.
Thank you for the advice on how to improve my debate style.

In return, I will do the same for you. The best thing that you could do to improve your style, in my opinion, is to be a different person.
WinePusher wrote:By the way, it appears you ahve trouble following the format you agreed to so let me make it clear. The next post is mine, not yours. Got it?
Yes, the next post is your rebuttal of my claim that an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

WinePusher

Post #16

Post by WinePusher »

You broke the format once again. It's probably cause you can't count, after 8 comes 9, and that's my final post. If you can't debate along a strict and structured format as other non-christians are able to, than don't agree to it before hand. There are other formats that suit people like you.
Zzyzx wrote:Correction: I did not AGREE to defend an ancient historical event and you did not ask that I do so. Read what you wrote.
I gave you the oppurtunity to do so in my post 6. Unfortuantely you have made it very clear that this is something you cannot do, it is simply beyond you. You can't support any historical claim, even your Japan one, with an original argument. All you can do is google and copy and paste.
WinePusher wrote:and readers will judge the reasons why you aren't able to. But again, you also aren't able to put up an argument.
Zzyzx wrote:Correction: I put up EXACTLY the argument to which I agreed -- and you now seem to be whining about.
I know, and I asked you later to put up an ancient historical claim to defend. you have dodged and danced around this request because you cannot do it. Like I said, that is your own failing and shortcoming.
Zzyzx wrote:You made a big mistake in NOT specifying "ancient history". However, you ARE good for your word, aren't you? Do do according to what you say, don't you? You are responsible for your own mistakes, aren't you?


Yup, but you certainly aren't. You embarrasingly exposed how unaware you are about this format in Post 7, and failed to admit your mistake.
Zzyzx wrote:Thank you for the advice on how to improve my debate style.
No problem, you need it, really.
Zzyzx wrote:In return, I will do the same for you. The best thing that you could do to improve your style, in my opinion, is to be a different person.
Heh. Why do you cry so much when you personal comments are directed at you when you do the same thing. This is very much a personal comment, so apparently you are simply one who employs double standards. The ironic thing is, Zzyzx's statement here validates the first line of Zzyzx's signature. :lol: Good Work Dude!
But what is really funny about this is that much my responses to Zzyzx contain quotes which he himself wrote in various threads through the forum, the profound irritation frustration you're emitting is your own fault. If you don't like personal comments, don't be the first to dish them out. That's called hypocrisy, become familiar with that concept so you can try to avoid it.
WinePusher wrote:By the way, it appears you ahve trouble following the format you agreed to so let me make it clear. The next post is mine, not yours. Got it?
Zzyzx wrote:Yes, the next post is your rebuttal of my claim that an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima
And you still don't get it yet, since you put up this poor quality post. Is it stubborness on your part, or is this format to complex for you to comprehend? The next post in this thread is to be my Post 9, got it?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #17

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher wrote:You broke the format once again. It's probably cause you can't count, after 8 comes 9, and that's my final post.
How terrible of me. Oh, I am Soooooooo sorry. You are so much more capable . . . so superior. I am ashamed that I "broke format".
WinePusher wrote:Is it stubborness on your part, or is this format to complex for you to comprehend? The next post in this thread is to be my Post 9, got it?
You may proceed with your post #9 ("WinePusher presents concluding post summarizing why the Resurrection is equally, or better, supported than Zzyzx's claim.")
Zzyzx wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:I did not AGREE to defend an ancient historical event and you did not ask that I do so. Read what you wrote.
I gave you the oppurtunity to do so in my post 6.
Thank you for the "opportunity", but I chose to stay with the original statement that YOU wrote and I agreed -- "Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice".

I did EXACTLY as agreed -- EXACTLY.

I know, and I asked you later to put up an ancient historical claim to defend.
Yes, after realizing your blunder, you groveled and asked me to agree to change the terms of debate to which we agreed. I did not and do not agree to help you rectify your mistake.

HOWEVER, after the final two posts are complete, I suggest "Round Two" (a repeat of the topic and terms) in which I WILL defend an ancient historical claim as being better supported than the "resurrection" (if you think that you can do any better with that condition).

It may be prudent to save face and decline (with excuses, of course).
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

WinePusher

Post #18

Post by WinePusher »

Heh, it's funny how you ignore large sections of my post once again. You're really having trouble in this thread, aren't ya?
WinePusher wrote:You broke the format once again. It's probably cause you can't count, after 8 comes 9, and that's my final post.
Zzyzx wrote:How terrible of me. Oh, I am Soooooooo sorry. You are so much more capable . . . so superior. I am ashamed that I "broke format".
It's not that you're terrible, it's that you don't possess the capability to follow elementary rules. You also apparently don't know how to debate intelligently, which is why you have been reduced to putting up childish statements like this, where you put words into the mouths of your opponent and issue fake apologies. And you still continue to break format by putting up inane posts like these. Save yourself some face next time and don't agree to ny debate that would require you to follow a format.
Zzyzx wrote:I did not AGREE to defend an ancient historical event and you did not ask that I do so. Read what you wrote.
WinePusher wrote:I gave you the oppurtunity to do so in my post 6.
Zzyzx wrote:Thank you for the "opportunity", but I chose to stay with the original statement that YOU wrote and I agreed -- "Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice".
I know you do. You've already shown that your knowledge of this subject is not impressive by any means, and to defend an Ancient Historical Claim with orignal arugments would just expose this sentiment to be a truism. Let's make it very clear, you can't do what I've challenged you to do. All you can do is google, and copy and paste.
Zzyzx wrote:HOWEVER, after the final two posts are complete, I suggest "Round Two" (a repeat of the topic and terms) in which I WILL defend an ancient historical claim as being better supported than the "resurrection" (if you think that you can do any better with that condition).

It may be prudent to save face and decline (with excuses, of course).
Good. I notice you didn't say you would put up original arguments, so I expect you will simply copy and paste links as you did earlier. But I'll give you a break since you've demonstrated that that's all you can do. I don't expect you to debate at a level that McCulloch or Abraxas have, and to do so would definitely strain you.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #19

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher,

WHERE is your summation of why the "resurrection" is equally, or better, supported than my claim????? Have you lost sight of what you are trying to "debate"?
Post #9 ("WinePusher presents concluding post summarizing why the Resurrection is equally, or better, supported than Zzyzx's claim.")
Have you given up even trying to support your position?

Do you see, as readers must, the truth in my signature: "Those who cannot honorably defend their position in debate frequently announce their failure by focusing attention on their adversary personally rather than on the issues or the questions that they cannot / will not answer.
WinePusher wrote:Good. I notice you didn't say you would put up original arguments,
I make NO claim to offer ORIGINAL arguments (with "original" defined as: "1. Preceding all others in time; first. 2.a. Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation. b. Showing a marked departure from previous practice; new: a truly original approach. See Synonyms at new. 3. Productive of new things or new ideas; inventive: an original mind. 4. Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/original).

Do you claim to present original arguments in favor of the "resurrection"?
WinePusher wrote:so I expect you will simply copy and paste links as you did earlier.
Yes, in all probability I will cite references that support my claim -- just as I did for the bombing of Hiroshima. I made the claim VERY clearly and cited wide ranging references to show that it was an event that happened in the real world.

Can the same thing be done regarding the "resurrection"? Can wide ranging sources be cited to show that the claimed event actually occurred? OR, is a SINGLE source cited?
WinePusher wrote:But I'll give you a break since you've demonstrated that that's all you can do. I don't expect you to debate at a level that McCulloch or Abraxas have, and to do so would definitely strain you.
There is no need to strain myself when my "opponents" defeat themselves.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

WinePusher

Post #20

Post by WinePusher »

Zzyzx wrote:WHERE is your summation of why the "resurrection" is equally, or better, supported than my claim????? Have you lost sight of what you are trying to "debate"?
No, I am not like you. I will put my Post 9 up when I am ready to. Again, gain some familiarity with the concept of hypocrisy, you have clearly demonstrated you don't know what it is since you're continuiously guilty of it. You take weeks to post in this thread, yet you're pressing me to put up my post? I'm sure readers understand, after your beautiful demonstrations in this thread, the type of debater you are.
Zzyzx wrote:Do you see, as readers must, the truth in my signature: "Those who cannot honorably defend their position in debate frequently announce their failure by focusing attention on their adversary personally rather than on the issues or the questions that they cannot / will not answer.
You've validated your signature more than enough times in this thread. However, the difference is you have announced your failures in more than one ways, and I've pointed that out to you in Thread Post 5, which you ignored (something you're extremely good at).
WinePusher wrote:Do you claim to present original arguments in favor of the "resurrection"?
Yes, as most debaters in this subforum have. They present orignally written arguments which links supporting it. All you can do is google, copy and paste. You cannot originally write an argument and articulate your own ideas, all you can do is plagarize.
WinePusher wrote:But I'll give you a break since you've demonstrated that that's all you can do. I don't expect you to debate at a level that McCulloch or Abraxas have, and to do so would definitely strain you.
Zzyzx wrote:There is no need to strain myself when my "opponents" defeat themselves.
'Defeat?' You approach debate in an extremely childish and juvenille fashion. Apparently you're goal is to have your debate opponent 'defeated.' That is your term, and it beautifully exposes your ulterior motives. Good Work, with every passing post you make in this thread you continually expose the type of 'person' you are.

Post Reply