Taoism is the One True Religon

Concession speech: Well, I didn't want to write this without getting more clarification from Con in the comment section, but that didn't happen. I in no way defend my claims successfully, so the Con should win on that point alone, but the Con could've done a more interesting job, for sure. The Con repeatedly demonstrated that he either didn't read my statements, didn't understand them or chose to ignore them. I looked at some of the Con's other debates and it seems like this is a recurring pattern. PLUS it looks like the Con had barely any encounter with Taoism before the debate and did a quick Google search to get a handle on it, which explains two of his misinformed arguments, and the Con seems to act like "Tao" means "Tao teh ching". Here's a list of Con's mistakes: A. Con hinged a lot of the tone of his rebuttal on the "headline" without taking into account the qualifying statement. In the comment section he later acknowledged this. He either did not read my prefatory statement, chose to ignore it, or didn't understand it. I invite the Con to explain which it was in his closing statement. B. Con didn't even argue against the system I was advocating. He demonstrated he wasn't aware of the difference between Philosophical Taoism (Daojia) and Popular or Folk Taoism (Daojiao). He either did not read my opening statement, chose to ignore them, or he wasn't astute enough to comprehend the meaning of my written words. I invite the Con to explain which it was. C. Con didn't attempt to counter my "proof" of the TTC's anticipation of modern cosmologies. (Evidence of my 1st proposition) No acknowledgment it was even made. (It's a questionable and all-too-fuzzy statement, for sure, but some actual questioning of it on part of the Con would've been nice). D. Con didn't respond to my demonstration that logic requires an independent basis, and Taoism identifies the concept "Tao" as this basis (a basis which needs no grounding in other basiseses). (Evidence of 3rd proposition) I know that the Con is capable of understanding my point, as he said in another debate: "However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief." E. If value judgments require a foundation, I claimed that the Tao was a necessary condition for them. (Evidence of propositions 2 and 3). See D. F. Con also wrote, "When I asked my opponent how this could be possible when Taoism has only been in existence for less than 3,000 years, he was unable to provide an answer. If my opponent is correct, then it would follow that logic and thought have existed for less than 3,000 years. This, of course, is trivially false." If he was at all knowledgeable about Taoism, he'd know that Taoism referred continually to ancient ancestors which go back to the beginnings of humanity, and I clearly identified smelly, belligerent "cave-Palins" as Taoists because they followed the (philosophical principle of the) Tao. How does Con's statement demonstrate he either read my statement or comprehended it if he did read it? He insisted on the fact that "Taoism has only been in existence for less than 3,000 years", which none of the books I cited as authorities on Taoism claim, nor which I claimed. This is like saying that there was no God because no one wrote a book about him until Moses (or whoever). Something can obviously exist before its been written down. Take Bigfoot, for example. I've assigned letters to each of these for the Con to be able to refer to them, point by point. I invite him to give his side of it. If I were to do it over again, I'd have focused predominantly on the cosmological proofs I presented, and been a bit more clear on defining the Tao as a basis for logic at the outset. Here's the kind of arguments I was looking for: 1. Taoism says nature is ultimately indifferent, then speaks about nature's "benevolence." If we look at the natural world, rape, murder, disease, etc. all occur in not only among people, but among animals. Most every animal will die in pain. Should we really model ourselves on this nature? Even the Tao teh ching says some things no reasonable person could accept, like: "Nature is unkind: It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs. The Sage is unkind: He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs." (5) (NOTE: He'd only have to have read the first five tiny chapters of the pivotal text of Taoism to be able to refute my claims of Taoist goodness) 2. Taoism encourages naivete and moral confusion: "The good ones I declare good; The bad ones I also declare good. That is the goodness of Virtue. The honest ones I believe; The liars I also believe; That is the faith of Virtue." (49) Have fun with calling criminals heroes and believing liars. . . etcetera etcetera Anyway, Con deserves some extra points for saying "this argument remains refuted" in reference to Nicholas Cage. lol