The end was a connection issue or something. I still saw myself on screen and could hear myself through the headphones, so I have no clue why the video didn't record me.
Anyway, he really didn't want to talk about the topic as stated and wasn't prepared to do so anyway, so it's fine. The audience heard anything worth listening to at the beginning.
Interesting. Hope to see you guys narrow things down and talk again.
@julian I don't think he's willing to do that. He wanted a platform to try to prove Jesus existed, which wasn't what the debate was about. When I explained that the debate was not about that, he still wanted to rant about it for ten minutes, then another ten after my feed cut.
I think it's rather unreasonable of Pro to have 14 points, and not develop any of them. He needs to pick 2 or 3 and zero in on those. The time constraints of a debate means if you want to actually prove something, you need to take the time to develop the points you are .The first 6 minutes of this debate are worthless blabbering. Pro needs to stop rambling and get to the arguments. Even when he does start making his points, they seem like good points, but he's still taking waaaaay too much time. Pro would do well to learn some word economy.Con doesn't get to make a single point until 11 minutes in. I don't like much of Con's points, but both sides agree that Pro has put the burden of proof on himself, and since Pro only has the shell of a bunch of arguments with no real depth of analysis, I can't give him any of these arguments. There's a difference between being right (which I think Pro is) and winning a debate, which Pro did not do here.
@phoenix my points are developed. I never had an opportunity to present them. Con talked about the existence of Jesus for fifteen minutes, (which was not the subject), then my feed cut. I technically was only given an opportunity to summarize the points and nothing else. It's unfair to judge a debate where one participant was cut off for half of the video.
@duncan_king tbf, you talked for 10 minutes first. You can’t have a productive 45 minute debate when each of you talk for 10-15 minutes at a time. That only lets each of you speak twice. The three minute time restraint QO had for the tournaments is also a handy number to aim for even in these regular discussions, since it allows for a good back and forth.Sure the existence of Jesus isn’t necessarily on topic, but he had a couple points about the birth narratives, and his overall point was that if Jesus is real, then his overall story would not have been fictionalized. Neither side had particularly strong arguments. On your side, I think you actually have excellent arguments, but you need to pick a couple and develop them. 14 points with no analysis doesn’t point the needle in your favor. 3 points with solid evidence and reasoning absolutely would have though. I didn’t vote Con because there was no response. I voted Con because I see no argument either of you gave that was worth voting on, so Con wins by burden of proof.You seem very well researched, but this isn’t a research paper this is a debate. Modify your approach to best fit the topic. Don’t waste 6 minutes on babbling about nothing. Pick a few points and really hit them. Also, if you took an hour and 15 minutes to get through all these points, without even having someone respond to them, it should have been obvious that a debate including all of those points would have to be 2 hours and 30 minutes. Again, be reasonable here. If you try to say too much, you wind up saying nothing.
@phoenix You clearly didn't watch the video.He argued with me about what the topic was for the first five minutes.From 5:00-10:51 I summarized the fourteen points. That is a total of 6:51 seconds.Then from 10:51-14:13 He argues with me about whether he should be permitted to talk about the off topic subject of whether Jesus existed.After brow beating me into letting him talk about it, eventually saying "well, but.." essentially conceding that what he is about to say is irrelevant to the subject, I allow it. He then speaks of that completely irrelevant matter from 14:13-24:26 when he finally mentions the genealogies. I then interject and we talk about the geneologies and I make him look pretty foolish from 24:26-33:59.Then as soon as I am pretty much slamming him against the wall, my feed is cut. So for the last 6 minutes I am not part of the debate anymore.8:22 of the debate consists of him arguing with me over whether he should be allowed to talk about things that are irrelevant to the subject.13:10 of the debate consists of him talking about things irrelevant to the subject.6:51 of the debate includes me summarizing my points.9:33 consists of me schooling him about the geneologies and the gospels in general.Then 6:00 consists of him continuing to talk after my feed was cut.In essence, we only spoke about the subject of the debate for 16 minutes and 24 seconds. I'm fine with criticism. I'm just saying it's not exactly fair to say I don't have developed points when my opponent only allowed us to talk about the actual subject of the debate for 16 and a half minutes.
This was not a real debate. My opponent didn't want to talk about the subject and my feed was cut. This was a failed debate and it had nothing to do with me or any "developed points."If you are interested in the subject check out my video "The Christmas Story Debunked" on my youtube channel: Duncan King. Of course, the points are very well developed. There are actually 17 points, that I narrowed down to 14 for this debate.