Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.

I'd like to give my opponent some respect for, at the very least, attempting to justify his case after thinking about it for no less than four days (not a lie). Even after all this time, my opponent ignores the second of my two contentions entirely (not a lie). This is, in my honest view, because my opponent does not have any responses (not a lie). To the first argument, my opponent calls it un-debatable without any justification, except to say he will not address me on this issue (not a lie) because I'm a "pathological liar" (not a lie). To qualify as having this mental disorder, I must be incapable of freely telling the truth (also not a lie). Note that every sentence in this paragraph is not a lie. What are we to conclude from this? That my opponent just loves insulting people by calling them pathological liars without the evidence to show it, despite very clear evidence to the contrary. That therefore my opponent is a liar. That therefore the issue is debatable. Just to show how much of a liar my opponent actually is, he then goes on to debate it. Besides which, it is a direct insult upon my person and does not engage with any of the issues raised in my argument. Point a my opponent refused to address. Point b my opponent conceded. He claims I cannot admit that I'm wrong. Little personal story ... when I was 6 I believed in Santa. I was wrong. There, did it. My opponent expresses an inability to cite anything other than a website, showing a lack of understanding about referencing formats. Funny that his books didn't teach him that, all scholarly books should include a reference list. Had he even cited the appropriate book-references I could have cross-referenced them with some of my own books (I have quite a collection). He also admits to citing content and misrepresenting / lying about their contents. Case in point. Point c my opponent contends. He just says "oh really?" in response to my argument. I suggest voters, if there are any, to read the opening part of my source for themselves. It's about the start of Zachariah. Saying two words is not enough to launch an argument against it. I did accuse my opponent of ignorance towards the prophecies and I did not contradict myself by saying something like "my opponent is learned in the prophecies." At the time, I was not necessarily speaking merely of the Zachariah prophecies. Finally my opponent brings out an apparent contradiction - is Zach 13 about the first or second coming of the messiah. I did note in the debate that it's complicated. In order to have a second coming, like Zach 13 prophesies, you first need a first coming. So if you prophecy about a second coming, you also imply that the savior is coming. It does not imply anything about the first coming, just that it must happen for your prophecy to be true. So I did not contradict myself. I admit I could have done more to clarify this, but it's a bit hard to express in a theological debate with a character limit. I would have if my opponent had brought it up. Me having to clarify all this, by the way, only further proves my point that my opponent is ignorant of the true meaning of the prophecies. He can, of course, debate that meaning, but this is no evidence of lying in and of itself. Point d&e my opponent ignored. I'll take it he is conceding these points. My opponent absolutely failed to respond to my points about his own inconsistencies and lies. Because my opponent continues to resort to personal attacks and slander, and because my opponent has raised neither cogent nor valid arguments, and because the one inconsistency he thinks he has shown is in fact not an inconsistency at all, and because he fails to respond to my arguments, I politely ask that voters vote for the debater with the better case. I fail to see how one can agree with my opponent except as a joke.