Right! Hours challenging you to a peaceful unedited video debate to share with the public that I even told you we can discuss Berkeley among other things (anything you want) that you agreed to @contextualize but somehow I'm the one "trolling"? (good luck with that)
I wonder if it's coincidence that I gave you a heads up about having multiple Talmudic scripture that involves a chosen one being able to lay with a 3 year and a day old infidel that scared you off? Just so you know we don't need to discuss that!
If you want to discuss any further, you know how to reach me (that is my final offer)
Huh!!!? I accepted multiple times, gave terms, and am waiting for you. How can I be "scared off" and waiting for you to reply to my debate terms at the same time? It seems you are the one who is scared to even discuss terms, which I gave you immediately upon accepting the debate. I offered terms, why can't you reply? We'll email when it comes time to get each other's skype, or the need to speak privately occurs. What does email even have to do with it? Seems like you just want my email address, kinda weird... What am I supposed to do anyways, email you the terms I've already laid out here? This is crazy... What would you say regarding them if they were emailed to you?!!! Or have you established an arbitrary rule that you'll only reply in email now, after all this?
"Final offer," he says. Guess that's your way of escaping the proposal which still awaits your response... Otherwise, frankly, go ahead, make your post, include every comment, in order, and ask the people...
Still won't address point #1?
Is Berkeley wrong?
Fine, since you're obviously scared of public humiliation on an online debate @contextualize, that would be viewed by many, in which I gave you my email so we can set up a time! I'll address your "point #1" here - ANYBODY THAT HAS A CLUE OF HOW A REPUBLIC WORKS, would know Berkeley is extremely wrong!
I suggest you look up what makes a Nation a Republic one :)
Regarding the debate, everyone can see the truth; you won't negotiate the terms.
Regarding Berkeley, I do not accept your faulty syllogism as remotely close to a rebuttal to their legal opinion, nor would any legal scholar or student. If you're such a law expert, I "suggest" you don't use so many logical fallacies, as they only work on the (innocent or otherwise,) ignorant. (Oh right, that's who you're looking for...)
Coming from somebody who apparently doesn't even know the difference between a democracy and republic (which America is suppose to be btw) clearly you are the "ignorant one"
About the online debate, does this mean you are accepting???? Let's make a time right now! When is good for you @contextualize? Also I had accepted all of your terms including all subjects you wish or are you lying to attempt to protect face?
Give me a time of your liking RIGHT NOW (no emails as you wish)
I have made no statement about the US being a democracy or a republic, so you're just fishing.
LOL you accepted terms? You mean you edited in acceptance? Show me where! Why did I ask you to negotiate terms so many times then? And why did you ignore those requests, focusing on the email?
Terms then time... If you're accepting them, then reiterate them here in reply, the way a negotiation works...
I agreed and continue to agree to an unedited debate on skype or Qallout and that you could pick the topics and I even previously stated that if you don't want the Talmudic quotes mentioned, that would be okay @contextualize
You've made no statements about democracy or a republic because you seem to not know the difference because if you did, you would know how wrong Berkeley is!
Still waiting on a time of your preference????? (obviously not holding my breath)
I can see you did not read my initial terms offer, since one of them is specifically inviting a set of so called Talmud quotes, which I have already refuted but you ignored, many times. Therefore and furthermore, your reiterated fake "offer" to exclude the quotes is proof of your lie, and wicked desire to make the Talmud look bad, while you imply that I avoid your lies (that you call quotes) about it, which I clearly do not.
I guess everyone in the world who knows what a republic is (lol at your assertion that I don't,) agrees with every (political) opinion that you have then! Rofl that you think your logic is valid, as well as the conclusion drawn from it. As if it were the crux of the question of law argued by Berkeley vs. your amazingly masterful, scholarly opinion anyways. What, did you just learn that the US is a republic and not a democracy? lol!