BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
C
cirisme
Guest
Her first post is good, but I don't think it does anything for her. I seriously doubt anyone is going to challenge the fact that the temple was destroyed. 
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Maybe he has a rock garden.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Originally posted by cirisme
Her first post is good, but I don't think it does anything for her. I seriously doubt anyone is going to challenge the fact that the temple was destroyed.
The opening with the destruction of the temple was powerful in my opinion as what it does is as you observed builds a common ground since a futurist will agree. By building this common ground she doesn't just come out and puke on the audience for it brings validity to the rest of her arguments. Jerry isn't gonna open his thread denouncing that the temple was not in fact destroyed he would lose his argument from the get go. So it follows that she is laying a well place trap I mean argument for her opponent where Jerry is bound to acknowledge her view has validity at least in the launching pad.
I also think that the silence concerning the tribulation was beneficial for her case as well. I don't know if it was because of length or she meant to do it but it agains helps bolster her foundation because she isn't just coming out sounding like a blithering idiot to any futurist. I would not be surprised if she had all this laid out already. But then Jerry is formidable enough to handle a loaded debate
I think the easy rejoinder to Dee Dee's first post is John 2:21-22
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
Since Jerry would never agree with anything I say, I have no problem posting this, hehe.
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
Since Jerry would never agree with anything I say, I have no problem posting this, hehe.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Everyone:
I am not sure if I am allowed to post here at all now... but I am sure that I am not allowed to post anything substantive... so I won't. But I am utterly astounded (did that sound melodramatic enough) at the failure of almost everyone to grasp my point. I don't mind having my points criticized (Lord knows I get that all the time) but I would certainly like for them to be grasped first. I am asking you kindly to please reread what I posted... there is a logical progression to the argument which is summarized in the final paragraph. No one here has shown that they understand the dilemna that I presented. Now I understand that all of you may disagree that it is an actual dilemna, and go for it if that is what you believe, but please for Pete's sake.... and least try to "get" what I am saying. .. I apologize for any writing inability or ill communication on my part.
And to our dear and beloved moderators please promptly delete this post if I am not supposed to be posting here.
I am not sure if I am allowed to post here at all now... but I am sure that I am not allowed to post anything substantive... so I won't. But I am utterly astounded (did that sound melodramatic enough) at the failure of almost everyone to grasp my point. I don't mind having my points criticized (Lord knows I get that all the time) but I would certainly like for them to be grasped first. I am asking you kindly to please reread what I posted... there is a logical progression to the argument which is summarized in the final paragraph. No one here has shown that they understand the dilemna that I presented. Now I understand that all of you may disagree that it is an actual dilemna, and go for it if that is what you believe, but please for Pete's sake.... and least try to "get" what I am saying. .. I apologize for any writing inability or ill communication on my part.
And to our dear and beloved moderators
please promptly delete this post if I am not supposed to be posting here.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear JohnV:
All I am asking is that you understand the point... disagreement is fine.. but I think we all want to make sure that what we are disagreeing with is actually the point that the other person was making and not a phantom, so I thank you heartily for taking the time to make sure that we understand each other. That is all that I can ask, so thank you.
And I am sure that Jerry disagrees too, so perhaps he will pose the issues that you would do if it were a debate between you and I. If not, you and I can hash it out afterwards.... I would look forward to it.
All I am asking is that you understand the point... disagreement is fine.. but I think we all want to make sure that what we are disagreeing with is actually the point that the other person was making and not a phantom, so I thank you heartily for taking the time to make sure that we understand each other. That is all that I can ask, so thank you.
And I am sure that Jerry disagrees too, so perhaps he will pose the issues that you would do if it were a debate between you and I. If not, you and I can hash it out afterwards.... I would look forward to it.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jaltus, Jaltus, I already spanked you on that before... do you need another
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Thanx!!! I think..... maybe I should have just puked on everyone
JohnV
New member
Ooh, that was a wicked right!
Ooh, that was a wicked right!
Personally, I would have had different emphases on the different points, but I'd say Jerry takes round 1.
His closing would have been my opening - what record is there that these supernatural occurrences Jesus speaks of take place in AD 70?
His main point would have been my minor point - OT prophecies concerning the end times (particularly the temple) that have obviously not been fulfilled yet.
Ooh, that was a wicked right!
Personally, I would have had different emphases on the different points, but I'd say Jerry takes round 1.
His closing would have been my opening - what record is there that these supernatural occurrences Jesus speaks of take place in AD 70?
His main point would have been my minor point - OT prophecies concerning the end times (particularly the temple) that have obviously not been fulfilled yet.
C
cirisme
Guest
Dee Dee,
Dee Dee,
It's your job to see to it we grasp what you're saying.
Dee Dee,
It's your job to see to it we grasp what you're saying.
C
cirisme
Guest
In order to help me figure out who wins the whole battle, I'm gonna keep track of who wins each round.
Jerry takes this round, hands down. However, Dee Dee has laid the ground work for a future round, and if she plays her cards right she could take what she's already got and undisputidly win the next round.
That's just my not so humble opinion, however.
Jerry takes this round, hands down. However, Dee Dee has laid the ground work for a future round, and if she plays her cards right she could take what she's already got and undisputidly win the next round.
That's just my not so humble opinion, however.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Ciris,
That is essentially what I was getting at that in the whole she may put together a winning argument but individually they stand the question. Which I think that to start it was an excellent start and a great foundation she built.
Dee Dee,
As far as puking on everyone I think you did a much better job of laying out your argument, without having to lose your lunch just well enough.
That is essentially what I was getting at that in the whole she may put together a winning argument but individually they stand the question. Which I think that to start it was an excellent start and a great foundation she built.
Dee Dee,
As far as puking on everyone I think you did a much better job of laying out your argument, without having to lose your lunch just well enough.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Wow, someone can win a round by totally ignoring that other person's point, which if true, makes anything else that is said utterly meaningless?? Go figure.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Poking at everyone??? Hmmmm..... a-poking and a-puking. Are those turds still for sale?
Actually in the opening round(s) its pretty customary to build your own case without devoting much time to responding to the others case.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
It isn't poking it's puking.....check again??? I think your powerpuff indignation is overflowing. I had now twice applauded you for a great opening and a great point to begin the debate.
As far as the argument in round one you're final conclusion as I read it was that in Daniel's prophecy and the Lord's words they referred to the same single event and temple.
I believe Jerry did in fact give a very good response that they may be two entirely different events and not one in the same as is your conclusion.
As it stands I can't give a point to either you or Jerry cause you made a point which you I am sure will continue to prove and Jerry made a counter which I am sure will continue to prove so I feel you both did equally well. Peace.
As far as the argument in round one you're final conclusion as I read it was that in Daniel's prophecy and the Lord's words they referred to the same single event and temple.
I believe Jerry did in fact give a very good response that they may be two entirely different events and not one in the same as is your conclusion.
As it stands I can't give a point to either you or Jerry cause you made a point which you I am sure will continue to prove and Jerry made a counter which I am sure will continue to prove so I feel you both did equally well. Peace.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Okay Knight.... I am duly chastised... but I thought you said it was smack down Well that's what I am doing... smacking down
BUT>>>>>BTW, he is the one who mentioned my opening post and proceeded to say that it was incorrect... and in every single one of his so-called proofs of the incorrectness of my position, he failed to deal with my point!! So he opened the door for my criticism that he ignored my point. Perhaps I should have said that he ignored my point (there was only one point - kind of hard to miss) while pretending that he didn't. Is that better? I expected an "opening statement" that would not even mention my post... but that is not what we got now is it?? As we say in the law, but Your Honor, the Plaintiff opened the door to that testimony.
Well that's what I am doing... smacking down BUT>>>>>BTW, he is the one who mentioned my opening post and proceeded to say that it was incorrect... and in every single one of his so-called proofs of the incorrectness of my position, he failed to deal with my point!! So he opened the door for my criticism that he ignored my point. Perhaps I should have said that he ignored my point (there was only one point - kind of hard to miss) while pretending that he didn't. Is that better? I expected an "opening statement" that would not even mention my post... but that is not what we got now is it?? As we say in the law, but Your Honor, the Plaintiff opened the door to that testimony.
- Status