Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderI don’t respect you enough to waste a good argument but when you’re serious you put up a thread with the debate you have in mind looking for challengers. You aren’t and admitted it. Joke.
Concession accepted. Last time i checked, it was you who ran from me coward.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I don’t respect you enough to waste a good argument but when you’re serious you put up a thread with the debate you have in mind looking for challengers. You aren’t and admitted it. Joke.
Again you dont even respect yourself, in other words your pathetic excuses wont work!
You are a coward! And a hypocrite to criticize h1!!
Now, i wont go thread to thread calling what everone knows you are...A pussy! So, ignoring your stupidity for this thread unless its you accepting my BZ.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again you dont even respect yourself, in other words your pathetic excuses wont work!You are a coward! And a hypocrite to criticize h1!!
Now, i wont go thread to thread calling what everone knows you are...A pussy! So, ignoring your stupidity for this thread unless its you accepting my BZ.
edit: everyone.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again you dont even respect yourself, in other words your pathetic excuses wont work!You are a coward! And a hypocrite to criticize h1!!
Now, i wont go thread to thread calling what everone knows you are...A pussy! So, ignoring your stupidity for this thread unless its you accepting my BZ.
Originally posted by NephthysLook. You’re h1 level garbage. Nah, you’re just not respected.
I have to give Quanchi credit, nobody can say he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. Impressive, dude. 👆
Originally posted by Nibedicus
You understand, that by continually and willfully spreading something that you know you cannot prove as a truth, that, in itself, is proof of you lying?You are the guilty party. I do not have to prove to you that you are guilty. I have to prove to everyone else (in an open forum setting) or to the judges (in a BZ) that you are guilty.
In a judged setting, you know I will nail you. That is why you never take the BZ challenges. In the open forum setting, you already know what people think of you.
Everyone knows this, no one is buying your BS. You know this, that is why you never accept any BZ challenges thrown your way. And that in itself incriminates you.
Then everyone accusing Bill Cosby is lying. Almost every court conviction is a lie. Do you see how silly you sound?
We use evidence. Stop saying proof. Proof can be subjective.
To lie, it must first be false.
Originally posted by h1a8
How can evidence be speculation?
Evidence are facts that can lead to a conclusion.I gave evidence (facts).
You really need to learn how to read, I said that your speculation
wasn't evidence.
BTW; if you gave "facts" then you'd have no problems providing the timestamp where Kyle stated what numbers he used in his equation.
Originally posted by h1a8
Then everyone accusing Bill Cosby is lying. Almost every court conviction is a lie. Do you see how silly you sound?We use evidence. Stop saying proof. Proof can be subjective.
To lie, it must first be false.
Lol. Except for the overwhelming witness testimony, amirite? Ppl who were actually there. Testimonies that need to hold up during cross examination. Within a judged environment.
(Edit. Of course no court is perfect, but at least the evidence is scrutinized and needs to hold up)
Not some internet intellectual-wanabee simply speculating at what someone else could have been using and then claiming and insisting it as fact and then denying the sheer dishonesty of that and then requiring absolute proof of said dishonesty by shifting the burden of proof for the other party to prove his speculative statement wrong.
Who can't even accept a challenge to debate within a judged environment because he knows he'd lose.
Enough, I've already stated that I will no longer engage you in your BS mental gymnastics. The fact that I even replied is a courtesy to those reading and not to you. I will repeat my question one last time:
I have challenged you to a BZ to for you to prove that your words were indeed honest and truthful. Will you accept?
Know that if you gloss over that question, I will simply copy/paste this statement below:
h1 has been challenged to prove his words within a BZ. His constant refusal to engage in a judged debate proves that he does not believe in his own words and that he has simply lying the whole time and prolonging the debate to bury what he did.
To anyone who wants to witness how dishonest h1 is, go to page 8 of this debate.
Essentially, h1:
>claims credentialed individual committed several errors.
>uses different values in his equation as credentialed individual and comes up with different result.
>uses his math (with the different values) as evidence to claim that since he came up with different result, credentialed individual must have committed an error in his math.
>doesn't get the absolute stupidity of that.
But don’t my word for it, go to page 8 and see for yourself.
@nibedicus
Evidence are facts that support a claim.
I provided facts.
If this evidence isn't sufficient then that must be argued. Calling someone a liar is uncalled for. Obviously I believe what I say. And I believe it for the reasons I gave. If I'm using faulty reasoning then you must show it. But the term "lie" has no place here.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You really need to learn how to read, I said that your speculation
wasn't evidence.BTW; if you gave "facts" then you'd have no problems providing the timestamp where Kyle stated what numbers he used in his equation.
I did give facts.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You calling them facts doesn't magically turn them into facts, if you want to call them facts. you have to actually prove that they're true.So go ahead and prove it.
He gave the formula to calculate the power output of a Star at 4:58.
He gave the temperature of a neutron star when it first forms on the order of 10^6k at 5:44 but his first link in the description gives that the TYPICAL temperature of a neutron star is 600,000k (the value I initially used).
He gave the power output of the Sun as 3.83e23W at 5:21.
His first link also gives the TYPICAL radius of a neutron star to be 10km (this is the value I and the PhD professor from Harvard who Nibedicus linked to used).
These are facts. Whether he used these values, we don't know. But the evidence supports that he did.
Originally posted by h1a8
@nibedicusEvidence are facts that support a claim.
I provided facts.
If this evidence isn't sufficient then that must be argued. Calling someone a liar is uncalled for. Obviously I believe what I say. And I believe it for the reasons I gave. If I'm using faulty reasoning then you must show it. But the term "lie" has no place here.I did give facts.
It's as if he never reads the posts....
As promised (edited for corrections/clarifications):
Originally posted by Nibedicus
h1 has been challenged to prove his faith in his own words within a BZ. His constant refusal to engage in a judged debate proves that he does not believe in what he is saying and that he has simply been stalling and lying the whole time so as to prolong the debate and bury what he did.To anyone who wants to witness how dishonest h1 is, go and start at page 8 of this debate.
Essentially, h1:
>claims credentialed individual committed several errors.
>uses different values in his equation as credentialed individual and comes up with different result.
>uses his math (with the different values) as evidence to claim that since he came up with different result, credentialed individual must have committed an error in his math.
>doesn't get the absolute stupidity of that.
But don’t my word for it, go to page 8 and see for yourself.