Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

your whole debate is a flaw set up for you to automatically win. That is why that one guy didn't even take the debate after he seen what its about. YOUR MANIPULATING THE CON TO BE FOR PRO. NO MATTER WHAT ID BE AGREEING WITH YOU. I HOPE MY VIEWERS CAN SEE THE MANIPULATION OF CONS POSITION IN ANY DEBATE, TELLING CON HE HAS TO SHOW PROOF OF THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL IS REAL KNOWING CON IS AGAINST NOT FOR IT. AS FOR A POSTING ARGUEMENT MY OPONENT STILL FAILED TO REASLIZE YOU CANNOT TELL CON TO ALSO AGREE WITH A PRO POSITION. DEBATING IS EITHER YOUR FOR IT OR AGIANST IT. MY OPPONENT ASKED THE CON IN THIS DEBATE TO BASICALLY SHOW PROOF THAT PRO IS RIGHT. MAKING IT A WIN WIN FOR PRO. As my arguements they have provided proof that prophecy is the same in the bible and outside the bible. making nostrodamus and the bible prophecy of daniel basically the same meaning foretelling the future, which he failed to prove other wise. I have proven a CONS POSITION ON THIS DEBATE AND THATS THE POSITION TO BE LIKE ALL CONS IN DEBATES TO BE AGAINST THE TOPIC OF PRO NOT JOIN AND GIVE THE PROS ARGUEMENT FOR HIM. My opponent clearly couldnt defend the pro position himself and wanted con to do pros work for him, for that is manipulation, and making this a one sided only debate. Meaning no matter what con has to prove pros points for his position. contradicting no matter who done this debate cons views. viewers PRO will repost this debate again with the same rules, he did it before and even the guy realise that after he ask pro whats the question, pro couldnt even answer whats the question. making the debate onesided which making it only benificial to a pros view. just like how religion forces beliefs in people, he trying to force his own believe through this debate topic. by saying pro is pro and con is pro. he even said it himself. when he clearly does not know that pro is for so you provide the evidence of the questions asking, and con is against it and he proves you wrong. but what pro wanted was for con to prove that its real, as well as pro proves its real. as for the kfc thing that has nothing to do with this debate its inrelivant and off the records. VOTERS RECONIGZE IF YOU WILL THE FALSE AND FAILURE OF MY OPPONENT AND HIS VIEWS FOR HE HAS PROVEN NOTHING TO ME NEITHER YOU. HE HAS FAILED TO KEEP THE DEBATE A DEBATE, BUT WANTED IT TO BE A BASICALLY FORUM WE WOULD TALK ABOUT ON COMMENTS. HE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE WHAT PRO IS SUPPOSE TO DO AND PROS RESPONSIBILITIES IN A DEBATE, NOT HAVE CON DO THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PRO SO HE CAN WIN IN THE END. HE SAYS IN A COMMENT THAT HE ONLY WANTED TO DO THIS DEBATE TO SEE IF HE RIGHTS KNOWING THAT CON MEANS AGAINST BUT MISUSING CON TO ONLY MAKE HIM RIGHT INSTEAD OF HIMSELF. We know as you read and as the guidlines were THE CONS position couldnt be argued with out siding with PRO, so as my debate and as i tried to post an arguement which i have in somewhat of a way I only needed to do what CON IS SUPPOSE TO DO AND WE KNOW WHAT THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS, TO BE AGAINST PRO. So since my opponent still did not post a PRO arguement, as the CONS position the arguements I had posted for a true CONS position on any debate I shall extend the arguements I had made in my earlier arguements, that truely is CONS responsibility and that is BE AGAINST MY OPPONENT, NOT SIDE WITH MY OPPONENT TO MAKE HIM RIGHT BUT WRONG IN ANY DEBATE. WHAT A CON POSITION SHOULD TRUELY BE AS IT ALWAYS HAD BEEN AND THAT IS TO GO AGAINST, NOT HELPING, NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION THAT PRO IS SUPPOSE TO DO THEMSELVES, BUT TO BE AGAINST THE TOPIC, TO BE AGAINST THE RIGHT OR WRONG. NOT HELP THE RIGHT OR WRONG. JUST LIKE PRO THERE FOR THE TOPICS THEY PROVE FACTS, EVIDENCE, PROOF, TO MAKE IT BELIEVABLE NOT TRY AND FORCE THE CON TO DO THE PROS WORK. IN THE END IF THE PRO ASK FOR THE CONS HELP TO MAKE PRO POINTS OF A DEBATE THEN THE DEBATE IS TRUELY NOT A DEBATE AT ALL. AND SINCE PRO COULDNT MAKE A TRUE CHOICE ON WHAT SIDE AND COULDNT EVEN DEFEND HIS POSITION ON PRO AS A TRUE PRO POSITION THAT SHOULD GIVE HIM A LOSS TO THIS DEBATE.