"The Paradox of the Open Society"

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Obviously you don't understand the fundamental theological doctrine of freedom found in the Christian New Testament.

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand what those words command. You made that claim before, I refuted it by providing you with the scriptures that command obedience to a king, you ignored that, and merely repeated your narrative about Christian freedom. Here's a little more of it if you like

• "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

There's your biblical freedom. Everybody just submit and obey - man to a god, subject to king, slave to master, and wife to husband. Sorry, but your claim about some imagined doctrine of freedom simply doesn't hold water.

There are always negative narratives when one concentrates on the actions of people, rather than the teachings.

I don't care about the teachings. I left Christianity, remember? It's the rendering of the religion in daily life that matters, not some words on a page that are routinely ignored.

ALWAYS, guilt by association is the harbor of the lazy and hateful..

Who are you talking about? Who's guilty by association? Are you referring to my list of atrocities and scandals by Christians and the church in the news that has made Christianity less popular in the public domain? Were you feeling guilty, or did you think I was blaming you for that? I blame the religion.

Sorry, but that's what people see in the news, and it goes a long way in determining the public perception of the religion, however much you try to dismiss it away (and the rest of my argument) with the wave of a hand.

The Founders knew where liberty came from, and made it clear that the rights they bestowed on the Republic came from God.

That's obviously wrong. This alleged god had nothing to do with those rights, which were a product of human Enlightenment thinking. This alleged god sat around indolently for centuries as kings ruled over subjects throughout the dreary Middle Ages. These rights, which appear nowhere in the Bible - just commands to submit and obey - were enumerated by men, fought for by men, defended by men, enforced by men, interpreted by men, and amended by men. No god was involved, and many people still do not have these rights, and never will if they're waiting for a god to help them get them. Rights come from people.

It's pretty obvious why the Founders gave lip service to rights coming from a god. Their message was one of rebellion against a king, which directly contradicts scripture, like this one you ignored last time (it's still there,in your Bible). Imagine trying to manufacture the support for a revolution from Bible believing people whose Bibles contain this passage:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

In the time-honored tradition of people speaking for a god to give their words more import, this is just more of that. It's OK to disobey scripture because God gives us the right to cast off the yoke of tyranny, right? Once again, I refer you to your Bible. It commands the opposite, however inconvenient that is for you and your false narrative of Christian freedom.

my assignment for you is to take some time and read the New Testament.

No thanks. As you can see, I'm already more familiar with its contents than you are. Furthermore, it has nothing to say to me any more and hasn't for about four decades now.

Your bias is so virulent, I suspect that at some time someone declaring themselves a Christian seared you pretty well,

My bias is rational and justified. I have been a witness of what Christianity is and does for quite a long time, and yes, I have a bias against Christianity (and religion in general), just as I do against drunk driving and pedophiles. They're all harmful.

And it appears that you can't accept any responsibility for the failures of your religion. Somebody so emphatically rejecting it can't be justified, so he must have been hurt by the religion. No, I was bored by it and walked away without any ill will for it. That came later, beginning with the marriage of Christianity to politics in the Clinton nineties, with Moral Majority, family values, war on Christmas, Falwell, Gingrich, etc., which led to a lot of pandering, demagoguery, and eventually, presidents George Bush and Donald Trump. This sick alliance was damaging a nation.

It was on these message boards beginning about fifteen years ago that I began seeing the damage being done to individual believers. I became convinced that faith based thought and Christian doctrine in particular were each destructive at the level of the individual. It's destructive to the intellect, personal values, and spirituality for starters, and the bigger the bite one takes of it, the more the damage, the fundamentalists and creationists being the extreme there.

This is what Christianity does. This is what it taught an American president to think about American atheists who he swore to defend:

• "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - President George H. W. Bush

How should an American atheist feel about Christianity after seeing what it did to that guy? Warm and fuzzy? This is a toxic doctrine rejected by Secular Humanism, which teaches nothing negative about Christians the way your Bible slanders atheists. I'll bet you're also pretty unaware of what the scripture says about unbelievers - pure hate speech.

Look at how the evangelicals voted in 2016. What does that tell you about the critical thinking skills and moral fiber of those willing to submit to such teaching? Like I said, the bigger the bite they take, the worse people they become.

How about what your Bible teaches about atheists? We are all lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, decadent, debauched, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, fit to be shunned and to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Don't believe me? Here's where:

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

[7] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

What should I think about a religion that teaches this kind of bigotry to as many people as will accept that judgment? Fortunately, many Christians are decent enough people to ignore the hate in their Bible and refuse to think of atheists in that manner. Substitute Jew, black, or gay for unbeliever in those scriptures and there would be a massive outcry. But apparently, to much of the world, it's still OK to describe unbelievers that way, thanks to the teaching of your religion. It explains the Bush quote above. He spent just a little too much time in church and with a Bible, and you say the effect.

Sorry, but it wasn't a bad experience in church that soured me to Christianity. It's Christianity itself and the face it shows the world. You probably consider yourself patriotic, but how patriotic is it to support a church that incessantly disrespects the founding American principle of church-state separation and not only attempts to pierce that wall and inject its teaching into government and law, but teaches that there is no such wall

Obviously you are another who hasn't a clue as to what the New Testament says. That ignorance does not deter you from pontificating as an authority regarding what it teaches.

Nobody seems to feel any obligation to defer to your distorted understanding of what scripture says. You have no authority nor any special knowledge in these discussions. In fact you don't seem to know as much about your Bible as some atheists. You were apparently unaware of the scriptures commanding submission and thought they were a doctrine of freedom. You also conveniently forgot all of that bigotry and hate speech in scripture, and thought that I might disesteem your religion because of a bad experience in church.

This time, see if you can address any of the points made with more than just dismissal and an air of superiority. Try evidenced arguments instead.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand what those words command. You made that claim before, I refuted it by providing you with the scriptures that command obedience to a king, you ignored that, and merely repeated your narrative about Christian freedom. Here's a little more of it if you like

• "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

There's your biblical freedom. Everybody just submit and obey - man to a god, subject to king, slave to master, and wife to husband. Sorry, but your claim about some imagined doctrine of freedom simply doesn't hold water.



I don't care about the teachings. I left Christianity, remember? It's the rendering of the religion in daily life that matters, not some words on a page that are routinely ignored.



Who are you talking about? Who's guilty by association? Are you referring to my list of atrocities and scandals by Christians and the church in the news that has made Christianity less popular in the public domain? Were you feeling guilty, or did you think I was blaming you for that? I blame the religion.

Sorry, but that's what people see in the news, and it goes a long way in determining the public perception of the religion, however much you try to dismiss it away (and the rest of my argument) with the wave of a hand.



That's obviously wrong. This alleged god had nothing to do with those rights, which were a product of human Enlightenment thinking. This alleged god sat around indolently for centuries as kings ruled over subjects throughout the dreary Middle Ages. These rights, which appear nowhere in the Bible - just commands to submit and obey - were enumerated by men, fought for by men, defended by men, enforced by men, interpreted by men, and amended by men. No god was involved, and many people still do not have these rights, and never will if they're waiting for a god to help them get them. Rights come from people.

It's pretty obvious why the Founders gave lip service to rights coming from a god. Their message was one of rebellion against a king, which directly contradicts scripture, like this one you ignored last time (it's still there,in your Bible). Imagine trying to manufacture the support for a revolution from Bible believing people whose Bibles contain this passage:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

In the time-honored tradition of people speaking for a god to give their words more import, this is just more of that. It's OK to disobey scripture because God gives us the right to cast off the yoke of tyranny, right? Once again, I refer you to your Bible. It commands the opposite, however inconvenient that is for you and your false narrative of Christian freedom.



No thanks. As you can see, I'm already more familiar with its contents than you are. Furthermore, it has nothing to say to me any more and hasn't for about four decades now.



My bias is rational and justified. I have been a witness of what Christianity is and does for quite a long time, and yes, I have a bias against Christianity (and religion in general), just as I do against drunk driving and pedophiles. They're all harmful.

And it appears that you can't accept any responsibility for the failures of your religion. Somebody so emphatically rejecting it can't be justified, so he must have been hurt by the religion. No, I was bored by it and walked away without any ill will for it. That came later, beginning with the marriage of Christianity to politics in the Clinton nineties, with Moral Majority, family values, war on Christmas, Falwell, Gingrich, etc., which led to a lot of pandering, demagoguery, and eventually, presidents George Bush and Donald Trump. This sick alliance was damaging a nation.

It was on these message boards beginning about fifteen years ago that I began seeing the damage being done to individual believers. I became convinced that faith based thought and Christian doctrine in particular were each destructive at the level of the individual. It's destructive to the intellect, personal values, and spirituality for starters, and the bigger the bite one takes of it, the more the damage, the fundamentalists and creationists being the extreme there.

This is what Christianity does. This is what it taught an American president to think about American atheists who he swore to defend:

• "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - President George H. W. Bush

How should an American atheist feel about Christianity after seeing what it did to that guy? Warm and fuzzy? This is a toxic doctrine rejected by Secular Humanism, which teaches nothing negative about Christians the way your Bible slanders atheists. I'll bet you're also pretty unaware of what the scripture says about unbelievers - pure hate speech.

Look at how the evangelicals voted in 2016. What does that tell you about the critical thinking skills and moral fiber of those willing to submit to such teaching? Like I said, the bigger the bite they take, the worse people they become.

How about what your Bible teaches about atheists? We are all lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, decadent, debauched, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, fit to be shunned and to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Don't believe me? Here's where:

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

[7] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

What should I think about a religion that teaches this kind of bigotry to as many people as will accept that judgment? Fortunately, many Christians are decent enough people to ignore the hate in their Bible and refuse to think of atheists in that manner. Substitute Jew, black, or gay for unbeliever in those scriptures and there would be a massive outcry. But apparently, to much of the world, it's still OK to describe unbelievers that way, thanks to the teaching of your religion. It explains the Bush quote above. He spent just a little too much time in church and with a Bible, and you say the effect.

Sorry, but it wasn't a bad experience in church that soured me to Christianity. It's Christianity itself and the face it shows the world. You probably consider yourself patriotic, but how patriotic is it to support a church that incessantly disrespects the founding American principle of church-state separation and not only attempts to pierce that wall and inject its teaching into government and law, but teaches that there is no such wall



Nobody seems to feel any obligation to defer to your distorted understanding of what scripture says. You have no authority nor any special knowledge in these discussions. In fact you don't seem to know as much about your Bible as some atheists. You were apparently unaware of the scriptures commanding submission and thought they were a doctrine of freedom. You also conveniently forgot all of that bigotry and hate speech in scripture, and thought that I might disesteem your religion because of a bad experience in church.

This time, see if you can address any of the points made with more than just dismissal and an air of superiority. Try evidenced arguments instead.

Cherry picked verses out of context only show the desperateness of your self proclaimed jihad. An example makes the point.

You did not quote Paul, when he said slaves were to seek their freedom in any way possible. Amazing that a Biblical scholar of your caliber would leave that out. You bloviate about Paul telling slaves to obey their masters. It really bothers you. I can only assume that you would much prefer to have Paul tell them to disobey. Of course they would be beaten, or killed, no matter, it fits into your particular view of right and wrong. You couldn't care less about the welfare of the slaves, that is irrelevant to you. Paul, on the other hand was primarily concerned about their welfare.

The rest of your blather regarding cherry picked verses doesn't deserve a response.

I have said many times that atrocities and murders have historically been committed in Christs name, contrary to the very doctrines of the faith, you aren't interested in why, so I won't impose upon you. I am amazed that you state I haven't done so. Perhaps you just don't remember ?

Please cite in the Constitution where separation of church and state is proclaimed. In numerous Constitutional law classes, this statement was never discussed. Perhaps you can point me to it in the document.

What I do find is " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " Where is your separation ? Though you do want to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

If the government provides the paving of a playground at a Christian or Muslim school your kind in the US would shriek till their noses bleed, yet that would have absolutely nothing to do with Congress passing a law establishing a religion. I personally believe that in general the separation of church and state is a good policy, yet it isn't in the Constitution, as many pocket legal scholars think.

Perhaps you ought to prescribe yourself some xanax or other tranquilizer ( do you need a prescription in Mexico? ) for when you discuss these matters. You jack yourself up to the point that you allow your negative emotions to ooze from the words you write, making them unworthy of response. It is like road rage on a computer screen.

 

[shmogie]

Being able to read what is actually in the Bible does not require a degree.

If you have read it, where did the erroneous nonsense come from ?

 

[shmogie]

The Bible is not just the NT and those that carried out the genocide of the Bible were not atheists.

What occurred in the OT was for a specific people, in a specific place, at a specific time. These were not Christians.

The teachings of doctrine, and relationships with all people for Christians is established in the New Testament, not the old.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you have read it, where did the erroneous nonsense come from ?

The Bible. Have you not read it? Is killing all the Amalekites, men, women, children, defenseless babies, even their animals, not genocide?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What occurred in the OT was for a specific people, in a specific place, at a specific time. These were not Christians.

The teachings of doctrine, and relationships with all people for Christians is established in the New Testament, not the old.

So it does narrate genocide. Thank you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cherry picked verses out of context only show the desperateness of your self proclaimed jihad. An example makes the point.

You did not quote Paul, when he said slaves were to seek their freedom in any way possible. Amazing that a Biblical scholar of your caliber would leave that out. You bloviate about Paul telling slaves to obey their masters. It really bothers you. I can only assume that you would much prefer to have Paul tell them to disobey. Of course they would be beaten, or killed, no matter, it fits into your particular view of right and wrong. You couldn't care less about the welfare of the slaves, that is irrelevant to you. Paul, on the other hand was primarily concerned about their welfare.

The rest of your blather regarding cherry picked verses doesn't deserve a response.

I have said many times that atrocities and murders have historically been committed in Christs name, contrary to the very doctrines of the faith, you aren't interested in why, so I won't impose upon you. I am amazed that you state I haven't done so. Perhaps you just don't remember ?

Please cite in the Constitution where separation of church and state is proclaimed. In numerous Constitutional law classes, this statement was never discussed. Perhaps you can point me to it in the document.

What I do find is " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " Where is your separation ? Though you do want to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

If the government provides the paving of a playground at a Christian or Muslim school your kind in the US would shriek till their noses bleed, yet that would have absolutely nothing to do with Congress passing a law establishing a religion. I personally believe that in general the separation of church and state is a good policy, yet it isn't in the Constitution, as many pocket legal scholars think.

Perhaps you ought to prescribe yourself some xanax or other tranquilizer ( do you need a prescription in Mexico? ) for when you discuss these matters. You jack yourself up to the point that you allow your negative emotions to ooze from the words you write, making them unworthy of response. It is like road rage on a computer screen.

You ignored virtually my entire post again. That's bad faith disputation, and costs you the debate.

Perhaps you were hoping that if you just ignored and evaded the tough questions, they'd go away and nobody would notice. But that didn't happen. I won't allow it.

It works the same in academia as it does in a court of law. The last feasible argument that goes unrebutted or is unsuccessfully rebutted prevails. If the defense attorney makes a claim of innocence, the prosecutor successfully rebuts the defense - perhaps by discrediting the alibi - and presents compelling evidence and argument in support of guilt, the defense must successfully rebut the prosecutor's argument.

If instead, the defense ignores all of that and hopes it goes away, as you are doing here, or simply repeats what it said previously unchanged - the same refuted alibi or says nothing at all - the defendant is likely to lose his case and go to prison.

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand what those words command. You made that claim before, I refuted it by providing you with the scriptures that command obedience to a king, you ignored that, and merely repeated your narrative about Christian freedom.

< sound of crickets chirping >

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >

Who are you talking about? Who's guilty by association?

< sound of distant, barely audible inner city car alarm at 3 AM >

It's pretty obvious why the Founders gave lip service to rights coming from a god. Their message was one of rebellion against a king, which directly contradicts scripture, like this one you ignored last time (it's still there,in your Bible). Imagine trying to manufacture the support for a revolution from Bible believing people whose Bibles contain this passage:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >

My bias is rational and justified.

< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle blowing through the fog with a buoy clanging >

This is what Christianity does. This is what it taught an American president to think about American atheists who he swore to defend:

• "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - President George H. W. Bush

How should an American atheist feel about Christianity after seeing what it did to that guy? Warm and fuzzy?

< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >

What should I think about a religion that teaches this kind of bigotry to as many people as will accept that judgment?

< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >

Nice work. This is no longer a discussion. It's me telling you how it is and you running and hiding, dismissing arguments with the wave of a hand, and insulting me with your useless comments about jihads and Xanax. Next time, try dealing with what is written to you, or not.

You're pretty easy to outperform when you don't even try. You seem lethargic, mentally sluggish. Perhaps an Adderal or Provigil might awaken you from this stupor. Perhaps you could participate in a discussion thereafter - you know - do your part, meet your responsibilities, and show the thread a little good faith disputation. You were asked to that before, and - well, this is all you could come up with.

Tacit concession accepted. Naturally, I feel no obligation to address any of your irrelevant reply. My arguments remain unchanged and unanswered.

 

[shmogie]

You ignored virtually my entire post again. That's bad faith disputation, and costs you the debate.

Perhaps you were hoping that if you just ignored and evaded the tough questions, they'd go away and nobody would notice. But that didn't happen. I won't allow it.

It works the same in academia as it does in a court of law. The last feasible argument that goes unrebutted or is unsuccessfully rebutted prevails. If the defense attorney makes a claim of innocence, the prosecutor successfully rebuts the defense - perhaps by discrediting the alibi - and presents compelling evidence and argument in support of guilt, the defense must successfully rebut the prosecutor's argument.

If instead, the defense ignores all of that and hopes it goes away, as you are doing here, or simply repeats what it said previously unchanged - the same refuted alibi or says nothing at all - the defendant is likely to lose his case and go to prison.



< sound of crickets chirping >



< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >



< sound of distant, barely audible inner city car alarm at 3 AM >



< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >



< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle blowing through the fog with a buoy clanging >



< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >



< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >

Nice work. This is no longer a discussion. It's me telling you how it is and you running and hiding, dismissing arguments with the wave of a hand, and insulting me with your useless comments about jihads and Xanax. Next time, try dealing with what is written to you, or not.

You're pretty easy to outperform when you don't even try. You seem lethargic, mentally sluggish. Perhaps an Adderal or Provigil might awaken you from this stupor. Perhaps you could participate in a discussion thereafter - you know - do your part, meet your responsibilities, and show the thread a little good faith disputation. You were asked to that before, and - well, this is all you could come up with.

Tacit concession accepted. Naturally, I feel no obligation to address any of your irrelevant reply. My arguments remain unchanged and unanswered.

Nope, not running and hiding. Rather I get bored with shotgun type posts that take me huge amounts of time to respond to, to do it properly.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted for which a destruction of your argument does not exist.

Tell you what. Write a paragraph or two of your criticisms, and I will destroy them. Then two more, then two more.

Cover every bit of it, and I will refute every bit of what you produce.

We will exegete the verses properly, and meet your other diatribe contents head on.

Are you up to a real debate, in a real debate format ? Not long winded polemics, but actual debate, issue by issue.

I doubt it, but you might surprise me. Lets see who the real runner is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nope, not running and hiding. Rather I get bored with shotgun type posts that take me huge amounts of time to respond to, to do it properly.

They look the same. They are treated the same.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted for which a destruction of your argument does not exist.

Yet you've chosen to let it all go unanswered. The arguments stand unchanged.

Tell you what. Write a paragraph or two of your criticisms, and I will destroy them. Then two more, then two more. Cover every bit of it, and I will refute every bit of what you produce.

Tell you what. I did that already. You ignored it. Discussion over.

Are you up to a real debate, in a real debate format ?

You're weren't.

Lets see who the real runner is.

We've already seen. You've already run from this discussion - a few times. You bellied up. There is nothing more to say. Since I won't repeat myself, and you can make no forward progress, we're done.

 

[Shad]

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?

He moved the goalpost, nothing more.

 

[shmogie]

They look the same. They are treated the same.



Yet you've chosen to let it all go unanswered. The arguments stand unchanged.



Tell you what. I did that already. You ignored it. Discussion over.



You're weren't.



We've already seen. You've already run from this discussion - a few times. You bellied up. There is nothing more to say. Since I won't repeat myself, and you can make no forward progress, we're done.

Apparently you never debated in school. You don't disgorge a plethora of things and demand your opponent to refute them.

No, the moderator or referee ensures that the debate is in segments, each segment considered complete when there are no more points or counter points.

What you want is a raggedy proceeding that jumps all about instead of focusing on issues.

You think you have something ? Then do it right. If you truly wanted to engage in a real debate, you would

So, numero uno hefe, your true colors are on display.

You want to vent your spleen in bombast and hyperbole, then go.

I have noticed this tendency in you before, especially when pinned, you suddenly become quiet or change the subject, then conveniently forget that you were drubbed.

Adios, mi grande nino !!