Bobcat wrote: ↑01 Jul 2021, 22:07
Also, bear in mind, the moderator has just broken "Rules for debate", rule 1(b) by calling me a "compulsive liar and/or a deeply stupid/slightly insane individual"
That is because you are a "compulsive liar and/or a deeply stupid/slightly insane individual"
Why should I trust that both you and been-there will abide by the rules in the formal debate, when you refuse to abide by them here?
There cannot be a formal debate without both you and been-there agreeing that you will abide by the rules and in particular the rule
1.) deal with the argument not the person making it. I.e. No ad hominem remarks or arguments.
You also need to show good faith by refraining from breaking that rule here from now on. If either of you break that rule, it will be regarded as you backing out of the formal debate.
So why do you want to debate me?
Because I wanted to see if you were afraid to defend your statements of fact that can be found in this thread
in a more formal type of debate. I assumed that in a more formal type of debate, there would be rules, and a moderator to enforce them, that would reduce the nonstop compulsive obfuscations and lies constantly spewed from a deeply stupid and insane individual.
Remember, comment like that breaks the rule 1 and means you are backing out of the debate.
But now I see that you are afraid to abide by those rules by insisting that we abide by your own special set of rules (See: narcissistic personality disorder).
You don't follow the rules as it is, and you are determined that it is you and only you who sets the terms of the debate. You are determined to ask me hundreds of questions, without answering any from me, which is not a debate. We both know this is you trying to get me to do the NAFCASH challenge again, which is not going to happen.
I knew you would come up with some kind of excuse - it's what you have always done in the past.
I refused to continue with the NAFCASH challenge because, as I answered more and more questions, you kept on altering the questions and you expected me to tolerate person abuse.
Nessie, you have been challenged to defend the statements of fact attributed to you in this thread...
Meaning what? I have already explained my answers to you in this thread.
... in the formal debate section titled:
Nessie and Bobcat each defend any statement of fact (up to this point) that can be attributed to them found in the 'Nessie's Admission That there Is No Archaeological Proof Of Mass Graves At Treblinka II" thread.
You have now framed the debate title, so you can avoid the questions I have asked you here and that you refused to answer.
Are you afraid to accept this challenge
and abide by these rules only (i.e - no "special" rules or exemptions demanded by you or me):
Yes. - or - No. - ??
Any answer other than a - Yes. - or - No. - will be taken as a - Yes.
The answer to that is, no. I am not going to do the NAFCASH challenge, in a thread where you ask all the questions, I get to ask none and you get to abuse me with impunity.
There are rules for that section of RODOH [The Formal Debate Forum] that were created to allow fair and constructive discussion, debate and presentation of arguments whether for or against.
They apply to all equally, and have always been applied equally without any bias.
In fact more REVISIONISTS had their posts rejected than any EXTERMINATIONALISTS ever did.
And that is for the simple fact that only two EXTERMINATIONALISTS ever contributed there. Which I think itself speaks volumes: i.e. the one’s posting here are not interested in fair and constructive discussion, debate and presentation of arguments.
Something tells me that number is not going to change any time soon.
Edited to add:
Nessie, after further thought, I have decided that if you are afraid to accept the challenge I outlined above, I'll accept your 3 additional rules if you accept this one additional rule of mine:
If I can conclusively demonstrate to the moderator that a statement of fact that can be attributed to you here in this thread or one that you make in our formal debate is a lie, then the debate is over and the moderator will declare that I am the winner.
I will accept that, if you accept that rule also applies to you, and you answer the following.
Q4 - did the post war grave robbing and the building of the memorial in the 1960s, further disturb the ground and make trying to identify the number and precise location of graves by geophysical surveys, difficult, if not impossible?
Q5 - do you have a university degree qualification in archaeology or forensic science? Yes or no.
We both know you are just trying to get me to do the NFACASH challenge and you are desperate to back out of this thread, where you are faced with questions you do not want to answer. You want the get out of calling me a liar, which of course the biased moderator will support, because me being able to ask you questions which you have to answer is going to cause you so many problems.
I will tell you now, my first question in the formal debate will be my Q4. It is important that in a debate about archaeology, we establish what qualifications, if any, you have. I have already told you I have none.
That you have chickened out of the debate on this thread, and you refuse to abide by forum rules here, does not bode well for a formal debate.