izbo10 is an Idiot and a Troll

Wow. I don’t think I have to say anything but… it’ll be fun. Let’s start with Izbo's conclusion: “my opponent needs to demonstrate I am both and idiot and troll. He has shown an inability to argue the first.” Here goes that mental deficiency again. Let’s look at the definition of the word idiot… again: Idiot: An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. The word “or” in this definition means that either example would suffice. Izbo gives a very poor refutation against mental deficiency, but even if there are other Izbo’s out there who will buy his deficiency argument, he still did not even bother to address the second example. By the rules of any debate, this would count as a concession. Being that he still had 2,000 characters left to refute the second example but didn't bother he is either: A) mentally deficient because he does not understand what the word “or” means, making him an idiot or B) he is significantly counterproductive by arguing that he is not an idiot, while demonstrating that he is self-defeating by conceding my point, making him an idiot. He also conceded the troll argument so by this point I have already proven that he is an idiot and a troll and thus, I have already won this debate. But just for fun, I’ll continue… In round 2 I posted 6 examples of DDO members giving Izbo advice on why he lost the debate. These examples demonstrate very clearly that he should be well aware that the main reason he lost to KRfournier and continues to loose is because of his own inability to debate, not necessarily because of the logic of his arguments. This point has been hammered to him by everyone since his trolling began, but he still does not understand it. (mental deficiency) More on this throughout… 1. Debates: Izbo actually tries to justify his debate losses with this opening statement: “A majority of these votes come from christians. It should be expected from studies of Iq and the recent pew research poll that christians don't understand religous topics very well.” He then continues to make his "Christians are stupid and don’t understand religion" argument as his reason for loosing so badly. 3 of his 6 losses account for most of his point difference. In those 3 debates, out of what I counted to so far be 26 votes, 23 have made it clear in one way or another that a major reason or the main reason they voted against him was because of his inability to debate or his trolling. Yet instead of understanding this he decides to show us that Christians are stupid as the reason he lost. k He then gave me a real good laugh (thanks Izbo) with this statement from his first round 2 paragraph: “I know, I know, cliff, you don't grasp a argument from majority fallacy and you badly need me to explain it, your lack of education here is not my concern so stop thinking it is. I am asking you to consider the fact of whether I am correct that it is an argument from majority.” Who is he talking too? Cliff? Where you at Cliff? I don’t see Cliff anywhere in this debate. Do you? Maybe in the comments? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Izbo to argue with him over there. But it’s hardly surprising. I hate to say I called it, but if you look at my vote comment in his debate with Grape I did say he should learn to debate his own opponent (more advice he ignores). By the way it’s “an argument” not “a argument” Recap:Mental deficiency: his own inability to debate and trolling lost him most of his debates, not the IQ of Christians. He should know this. Arguing with imaginary DDO members does not help. Self-defeating and counter productive: insulting the voters is not a good way to win an argument which proven by his concluding statement he is clearly trying to do. 2. Mental Deficiency: Izbo responds to my argument here with a series of responses to my quotes. Here is his first quote: “A semantics game here, because I saved some characters by not typing rationality of believing in a specific god, he is attacking me here” Saved some characters? The part he did not originally type was “specific god”, however the phrase that was brought to his attention that he never addressed was: “This debate is not about arguments for god, but when somebody reverts back to saying, you just have to have faith, that, that very statement makes it illogical.” Because Izbo needs his hand held on this one I will explain: When Izbo stated that it was not about arguments for god he made it very clear that god was being used as the example of his debate topic which was the logic in using faith. If the debate is about the logic in using faith then KRfournier does not have to choose a specific god and defend his choice because god is not the topic, logic in using faith is. There may be some flaws with KRfourniers argument (that he would have had the opportunity to defended if Izbo understood how to debate) but once KR made this point clear, Izbo never refuted it and just kept repeating himself. That is why he lost. (does anyone think he will get it now?) Anyway… next Izbo responds to my quote about the 6 of 7 voters who voted against him with this: “See what I said about argument from majority before.” Huh? My comment had nothing to do with majority. The point of the quote was to show that everyone who voted against him explained that they voted against him because of his inability to debate, so if he was not mentally deficient he would have been able to understand why he lost and learn from his mistakes. Instead he pointlessly challenges everyone who voted against him to defend an argument they did not necessarily agree with in the first place. It is clear they did not necessarily agree with it because they explained full well what there vote was based on. But he still doesn’t get it. Izbo then goes on to defend his logical argument. Blahh blahh blahh. No one cares. That is not what all this is about. 3. Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar: Izbo then pastes my 774 character argument against his spelling and grammar, just to say he doesn’t care about grammar. k Just for fun… If you have not already done so, please copy the word “ maranimacons ”, paste it into your google search engine and hit enter. For an additional laugh click the link that says “repeat the search with the omitted results included.” Argumentum ad Populum It may be a logical fallacy but... Im just letting a few others have a say: “However at DDO, there are quite a few experts on logic. Realize that you have a lot to learn - and start learning!” Baggins “Grape is a pretty good name--not great, but alright. But izbo10? What a stupid name." LaissezFaire “Obvious troll is obvious.” J Kenyon “Someone call izbo10 a WAAAAAmbulance.” TheNerd “His writing is incoherent and shows no signs of editing or a basic English education.” Grape “7pts against for trolling.” ReformedArsenal "Izbo10, please. You have the poorest skills in logic, grammar, and especially conduct [and communication] that I have seen of a debater yet.” Man-is-good “Poor izbo” Thaddeus Conclusion: In addition to being a troll I have clearly shown that Ibo10… You are a Freaking IDOT!!! Voter guide (unnecessary but still fun anyway) Agreed with before the debate: Obvious Agreed with after the debate: Obvious Conduct: He accepted being called an idiot by accepting this challenge. He called me stupid twice. Stupid is worse. Debating with imaginary people doesn’t help either. Spelling and Grammar: In round 1 “accept.” should be capitalized because it’s the first letter of a sentence. It was the only word in the entire round and he could not get it right. More convincing arguments: I already affirmed resolution at the beggining. Besides... do you still think he is an idiot and a troll? Enough said. Most reliable sources: My sources were relevant to the topic of the debate. http://pewresearch.org...?... http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com...? WTF?