Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

When reading round three ive only found three main points, since many points stem from one another, thus making seven points much smaller. RE: 1, 2, 3 It appears Aceviper2011 is still on the path that i must first prove that prophecy is real, and i should first show that visions from Daniel have occurred. I have shown linked, and my personal study towards the topic, without him replying to -any-. His core reply comes from the fact that I should be posting first that prophecy is real, before i can even begin to link Daniel into any timeline. Yet when looking at my debate from the beginning, it's clear the role of Con is to debate the place in time of when they have occurred, yet Aceviper2011 is keen on sitting on the fence waiting for me to feed him ammunition. This isnt the natural of the debate that ive set out, nor is it the way ive forced my opponent to behave. The line in which ive spoken is that God is real, his words are factual and can be traced by history, in which ive outlined the way in which God's word is vastly different to that of human visions (aka Nostradamus). I showed how different God's word is to Nostradamus, yet AceViper2011 has decided not to input anything towards it. I didnt make clear points towards Nostradamus to make my opponent reply, since this isnt the debate. But if he wish's to ignore everything i say, ill gladly make everything a point to ask him to reply. Ill repeat again, it appears AceViper2011 has a distorted understanding of this debate, or that - my words and statements are a contraction. The way i used "WHEN they HAVE" occurred seems to be the major one. I personally cannot understand what his point is at all, since this statement isnt contradicting or refuting anything ive said. It only makes sense that this comment makes him think he has to admit that prophecy is real to continue this debate...in which this IS the case. His role as Con (as ive stated) is to prove when they have occurred, or that they're linked to apocalyptic times. If he decides this isnt what he's debating, then this debate ends right now, and Aceviper2011 should be more careful when taking a debate in which he doesnt actually believe in his position. RE: 4 ~ So why would I provide my viewers and opponent links from the book of Daniel to connect it to the apocalyptic events, when my opponent needs to provide us with direct links about it since he is PRO(for) and I am CON(against). Because as Con, your role is to debate WHEN they HAVE occurred, or when they WILL occur in the future, aka apocalyptic. Comments I shall address. Aceviper2011 said -Well I have tried to explain what prophecy meant, and my opponent clearly tried to debunk my definition in his 3rd round argument. -My reply: I didnt try to debunk your statement, i didnt have to, since you showed no evidence or facts at all. All you said was - "These visions and Prophesies are honestly coming true, last time I heard, even Nostradamus failed, so did the Mayans. " I did actually show factual logical reasons which ive clearly shown are vastly different from Nostradamus etc. Ive shown how detailed they are compared to vague statements from Nostradamus. Since you didnt reply to my counter argument, i shall conclude you dont wish to press your statement anymore. Aceviper2011 said -My opponent stated to me that prophecy in the bible is different and more complex meaning then, how we use prophecy today. Then my opponent said after he basically said that "in biblical "future telling" we have detailed specific events based within a very tight marked area which cannot be generalized".Well future telling is the same as future telling, there is no difference. -My reply: Yes, there is. Telling someone a bird shall fall from the sky, isnt the same as saying God told me my alphabetical soup shall teach me french for the next 24 days. One is very vague, one is very specific. Both referring to as future telling, but very different, such as calling a fishing ship a boat, and calling a oil tanker a boat. Same same! You say. We'll if this is your logic, we shall have a very childish debate. Aceviper2011 said-As for the tightly marked events and times well, we still do not know as a society when all the books of the bible was truly written, if it was before or after all events. -My reply: First of all, you showed no facts or proof, yet you continually say im not showing proof. Please be consistent with your demands and statements. Secondly, i have no obligation to defend fact-less statement, but for the sake of it, i shall explain the errors in your generalized lacking logic towards the topic. Your statement is very common, in which you claim that Daniel could have been written after these events occurred, which would disprove predictive prophecy. I shall reply and say- Provide me evidence that your statement is true, because noone has been able to. It's theory, not fact. The Maccabees theory is behind it, in which no evidence is found to support it. Aceviper2011 said-... or anything he is applying with his argument but just copy and paste text from the internet with out explanations on what he means. -My reply: At least a copy link from a website which provides proof that im not talking hot air is provided for readers. --- Ending comments for Round 4. I ask AceViper2011 to be more constant with his requests in terms of evidence and understanding of this debate. I urge him to overlook the current debate for Cons position. If this isnt his belief, then this should end, or, if he just wants to debate a very small detail, i find it a waste of time. If ive shown logical reasoning towards all of his points, yet he isnt willing to cross check himself, but rather keep beating on about the nature of the debate - then his time isnt well spend in this debate. Essentially, he's debating himself atm, since he is struggling to understanding is position as Con, which means he'll most defiantly lose this vote. Aceviper2011 is very keen on showing my 'apparent' lack of understand of my own debate - however this isnt the case. I shall give you an example of your role as Con. Go check some prophetic readings about Daniel, and check out how many think the King of the North is Russia. Yet i'm debating that the King of the North has already occurred. This is merely an example, but use it if you wish. -- So far i do not count any new points from Aceviper2011, in Round 4 ive replied to his statement that my three points are a contraction of this debate.