RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

My opponent, Mangani, as he has from the beginning, submits his fourth round offering with false and/or misleading claims, starting with: - My opponent still refuses to stick to the format of this - debate, and actually debate the issue he claims. I am more than willing to debate the issues that represent my position and not the false and/or misleading representations of my position as my opponent, Mangani, seems determined to present here. For instance, as I made clear in my opening round, I am accepting the negative position on the affirmative that Mangani posted at the top of this page: - RLBaty's Exercise is pointless Mangani has, effectively, abandoned that affirmation and refused to come out, come clean, and openly negotiate the necessary details for taking up another point of contention. He thrice explicitly denied my invitation that he take up the debate on his Step #2 problem, after we reached agreement as to Steps #1 and #3 of my exercise. That invitation remains open for him at: http://www.debate.org... We can also negotiate a proposition more tailored to his specific needs if he is up to it. Mangani added: - The fact is he accepted this debate with my - Round 1 written as is, yet he refuses to abide - by the rules and premises presented in the debate. That's false. What I did in Round One above is state, rather explicitly, in part: - My acceptance of the invitation should not be - interpreted in any way to mean that I endorse - all that my opponent posted in his round 1. - - I believe that there are false and misleading - claims made therein. and - As I understand from the posting of this challenge, - the proposition to be discussed is as follows: - - RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS - - - Affirmd: Mangani - - Denied: RLBaty - - That proposition is the one posted at the top of the challenge. - - If that is not the proposition to be discussed here, then I propose - that my opponent withdraw from this discussion and consider posting - a challenge that actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm - regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. - - I may or may not wish to discuss any such alternative proposition(s). Mangani also now writes: - I've abandoned no proposition I ever sought to undertake. - I've presented my premise, and I've defended it. - It is up to the judges to determine if I have done so adequately. So, it appears that Mangani never sought to undertake to establish the affirmative claim shown at the top of the page here: - RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS That's a further implied concession by Mangani of the proposition he posted as the affirmative and which I agreed to act as a negative. Mangani presented many other "premises" and false and/or misleading claims as he "galloped like Gish" all over the landscape. Ride on, Mangani, ride on! Let me know when you are ready to come out, come clean and openly and honestly negotiate for a bonafide discussion of your problems as they relate to me, my argument, and the claims I make for it. It's not up to the judges to decide how to judge your antics here; though they, whoever they may be, are welcome to whatever opinions they may wish to form. Dare any of them wish to challenge me regarding my arguments and the claims I make for them, they also will have an open invitation to come out, come clean, and openly, honestly deal with any problems they have with such matters. Mangani rambles on and throws in the following suggestion: - My opponent should be presenting an actual argument. I was under no obligation to present any rebuttal where it was clear that Mangani had offered no affirmative argument and nothing else that he claimed would lead to the conclusion that: - RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS I have, however, repeatedly pointed out that Mangani has, effectively, abandoned that claim from the beginning. The debate was over before it ever got started, though the banter helps to add some additional context to the exercise which, among other things, has the effect of demonstrating that Mangani is not a worthy correspondent regarding these important public issues. Perhaps he will repent and bring forth works meet for his repentance; perhaps not. In closing, Mangani proposes: - I have repeatedly shown how GOG - fails to achieve it's intended results. - - It is, therefore, pointless. Those statements are false! Simply false! Besides failing to do what he claimed to have done, Mangani's conclusion does not logically follow from his claim even if his first claim were to be true. Mangani can spend the rest of his life claiming he has shown that the exercise does not do something or another and he will not have shown that the exercise was pointless. In reality, Mangani's response to the exercise makes one or more very good points that are relevant to these important public issues and the historic place my little exercise has in the popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science. My obligation in the discussion of the issue I agreed to discuss, however, is not to establish any one point to the exercise, though that might easily be done, with or without Mangani's concession on any one point (his refusal to accept even one point would be anticipated). No, my obligation, if we were to seriously discuss that matter, would be just as I have done already here; to simply point out that Mangani's argument, such as it is: - DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT... - - ...RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS.