Islam Myths

There are only two arguments I see here. Argument 1: Currently he is hiding in the forums Argument 2: not wanting a professional debate Argument 1 response: I am in many places. I am not necessarily hiding. The fact that I am here responding, is proof that that I am not hiding from my opponent. The fact that I have engaged debate.org forums in the first place (which my opponent admits in his opening statement), is proof that I am not hiding but engaging. How can one hide from a user in a forum by engaging them in that very forum? The two are diametrically opposite and incompatible. I provide proof in two links below of myself engaging my opponent repeatedly in multiple threads on this website, to which my opponent consistently refuses to answer my challenge to all Muslims. This reveals that it is not me but my opponent who is in fact hiding, hiding from my challenge. The two threads are below. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I also suggest the possibility and perhaps even probability to almost certainty, that my opponent is attempting to construct his own rules of debate in such a manner that it is rigged in his favour in a way that he can't possibly lose. I also suggest that it is his plan to vote on this rigged debate with sock puppet accounts in order to win through votes, which is ad populum fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people or their sock puppet accounts vote, it doesn't make it any more true or false. The whole world could believe the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't make it true. My opponent has become desperate after being proven wrong and repeatedly caught out in his lies in the two threads above, to the point where he has called to have this very website shut down. I argue that it is likely his intent to up vote himself with sock puppets and other Muslims of this forum in this medium as a way of falsely claiming victory, to which he can refer to himself and his rigged 'debate' in the threads above and in the future to falsely claim victory instead of actually dealing with the arguments and challenge. Ad populum fallacy: Argument 2 response: Where is the evidence that I don't want a professional debate? In the absence of evidence, I claim that no such evidence exists. If no such evidence exists, then I demand my opponent withdraw his claim and concede this so called debate. How can anyone legitimately argue from a position of claiming what someone wants? How can you ever prove what someone wants? My opponent is making claims on what he thinks I think. Such claims cannot be proven, and therefore they are invalid. Therefore, the opening statement of my opponent and topic of this debate is self refuting and my opponent defeats himself with his own claim. If my opponent wants to claim that he can somehow read my thoughts and prove them, then I am open to him providing sufficient evidence of such a supernatural ability. In my very introduction to this website, I came with one of the most comprehensive arguments in the history of this website. It was an abbreviated version of the complete argument. I provide the forum thread and complete argument below. The initial forum thread message contained 30,000 characters and 40 links. The complete argument contains over 100,000 characters and over 100 links, with links to even more links that contain many hundreds of further links. If that doesn't suggest that I want a professional debate, then I don't know what does. Debating in this manner is not necessarily professional. And since it involves the ability to rampantly abuse the system through anonymous sock puppet voting, I suggest that debating in this manner is unprofessional, which is why I prefer to stick to forums where debate is ongoing and more indepth. Forum thread: http://www.debate.org... Complete (and growing) argument: https://yivysfqhodfpnhz6k09bew-on.drv.tw... I provide examples of my attempts at debate with professionals, by showing a playlist of samples of myself engaging professionals on major internet forums and social media with the same claims and challenges, only to be heavily censored and not a single argument stands against me. My claims and challenges have been shared by one of the largest movements in my country through social media, which is why I was banned from social media. If that doesn't suggest me wanting a professional debate, then I don't know what does. I have even offered a monetary reward for anyone who can challenge me with a superior argument. If that doesn't suggest me wanting a professional debate, then I don't know what does. Sample playlist of my attempts at professional debate and being censored: Australia's largest anti-Islam movement sharing a challenge of mine, resulting in a 30 day ban and censorship: https://i.imgur.com... An example of the censorship: https://i.imgur.com... An example of me offering a professional debate with a bet to encourage professionals to debate me: https://i.imgur.com... Another example of me offering professional debate on social media, in search of a professional: https://i.imgur.com... But most of all, I can simply refute my opponents claim of me not wanting a professional debate by stating right now that I want a professional debate.