handofdave wrote: Well, I should know better than to go up against your impeccable debating skills, but I'll stick with what I feel
I resent and reject the implication that you've got a valid point but I somehow make it look foolish by my amazing wily cunning ways. It does not take advance debating skills to rebut what you said.
You made an outlandish slur against Dawkins (that he is motivated by desire for fame and money) and gave nothing whatsoever in support of that.
You tried to back it up by making a claim that is demonstrably untrue and shows scant knowledge of what you were referring to (that Kurt Vonnegut was a christian).
It isn't 'impeccable debating skills' to show someone's wrong when they blatantly are, it's actually the easiest thing to do in a discussion.
When someone's shown to have no evidence for what they claim, it's good if they then concede it and change their position rather than stick with it on the basis that it isn't true but they want to 'stick with what they feel'.
|