izbo10 is an Idiot and a Troll

. His debates: izbo10 has been in 7 debates. He has lost 6 of them, with his only win currently at a score of 2-1. As I write this he is loosing all his debates by a combined score of 166-20.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. Logic is also another topic that most college students struggle through, I remember having to help several people through logic 1 and the math version numbers,sets, and structures so to base it on the masses opinion is a argument from authority or majority fallacy and a poor authority or majority at that. 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.sources:http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]http://pewresearch.org...2. Mental deficiency: izbo got into a debate with KRfournier about a week ago where he lost the debate badly (34-3) because he did not know how to handle his opponent’s argument. Izbo’s specifically stated in his own rules: “This debate is not about arguments for god”, yet he begins his final round with: “So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god”… okA semantics game here, because I saved some characters by not typing rationality of believing in a specific god, he is attacking me here, which by the way was the point.6 of the 7 voters who voted against him explained to him that he lost because he did not argue his own resolution. But he is too mentally deficient to understand this. He instead goes on a temper tangent challenging everyone who voted against him to defend KRfournier’s argumentSee what I said about argument from majority before.Grapes argument that KRfournier’s argument flows logically was clearly an adequate point. But did Izbo address his opponents point as this was his mistake before? Of course not. He then takes the next round to refute KRFouriers conclusion instead of the argument made by Grape who he was debating. I did address the point, my opponent being to stupid to comprehend a point, is not a failure to address a point, to put my argument in a basic form here. Krfournier's argument can prove to the same person that it is rational to have faith in allah and yahweh(jewish verion) and Jesus.These 3 are mutually exclusive, meaning if 1 is right the other 3 is wrong. Also since this debate was about only placing faith in one specific god, he needed to address the dismissal of the other gods, he did not. I even called him on this.So, I then went onto show that to use faith alone would have this form:The other 2 gods are not worthy of my faith by faith alone.My god is worthy of faith alone.Therefore my god is not unworthy of faih by faith aloneFrom wikipedia, on special pleading.Form: Rule: Xs are generally Ys. x is an X. x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). Therefore, x is not a Y. I do apologize that my opponent here is so stupid he needs things spelled out but we shall continue to spell this out for him, so that maybe he will learn something. Since being rational is to be in accordance with logic, and we have shown the only way to pick a specific god is through special pleading and that is a logical fallacy his conclusion can't be true. Plus his conclusion once again, never addresses a specific god. I know, I know you guys are too dense to grasp this very easy concept of special pleading. 3. Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar. Everybody who has read any of his debates knows this and almost everybody comments on it. Here is the last message he sent me: "the resolution was he needed to argue it was a valid or in other words a good argument for the ipu." Where to begin? Ok “The” should be capitalized because it is the first letter of a sentence. The word “was” should come after “he needed to argue”, and the word “that” would also help. There should also be a coma after “valid”. Lastly, since “ipu” is an acronym for “invisible pink unicorn” it should be capitalized. So let’s see how this comes together now: The resolution he needed to argue was that it was valid, or in other words a good argument for the IPU. I may have gotten one or two points wrong but either way, a definite improvement. Get this I admit to not being careful with my grammar on the internet, I am more focused on my point then the grammar.Just a few things I wanted to get out there. The rest of it is simple, my opponent throws out quotes, but never even attempts to show how those quotes make me an idiot. As for being a troll by some definitions I may be a troll, but that is neither here nor there, my opponent needs to demonstrate I am both and idiot and troll. He has shown an inability to argue the first.