As I said, it was my understanding that you took out the cross-examination from the debate, so I did not see a reason to partake in that step, nor inform you that I wasn't doing so. But it mattered not. As I said, I did not have any questions. Further more, making a post to inform you that I did not have any questions would have just delayed the debate even more. It took forever to get it started and I hate making a post to ask a simple question and waiting half a day for you to post a response. I have a lot of anti-Christian, anti-4th Watch, and charity work to attend to, so I need to make sure that my time is not being wasted.

In any case, I had a set of rules that I wanted us to abide by, and you wanted a few additions. Fine. You are the one who requested the debate, but you have been slow to get it started, and I waited. I hinted to you that I did not prefer a formal debate, but this is what you wanted, so I agreed. You don't even know me, and you're calling me by a different name, but I said nothing about it. I really wanted to do the debate on Facebook, but you wanted to do it on your blog, consisting of an offensive name which makes me sick, but I gave in. You set the topics, I let you go first, even before the coin toss...I have been very giving in this debate so far, I would think that the least you could do is be a little forgiving if I didn't follow the debate exactly as you wanted me to. However, I understand that forgiveness is the complete opposite of what 4th Watchers are taught in their church.

But I think what's really going on here is that you know I completely CRUSHED your argument, and so you're feeling bitter, and perhaps are even looking for a way out now, since you now know what you're up against, and that you know in your heart that you have already lost the debate and you cannot win.

A simple note about the rules would have been nice, and then a response to my rebuttal, but no, you had to talk crap. With the way you are talking to me here and the language you are choosing, it is clear in my mind that you are trying to make me sound like an unintelligent and irresponsible person who is incapable of carrying out a debate, when the fact of the matter is, you are just no match for me, and you are finding this out too late. Had you looked more through our project, you might have been better prepared and would have a better understanding of what you were in for.

You said that because I have no cross-examine questions, that I am incapable of examining your arguments. That is completely untrue and an unintelligent thing to say. If that was really true, and I was not capable of examining your argument, then I would not have been able to construct a successful rebuttal for it, which I clearly did. Again, it sounds like you just can't win the debate, so you're now trying to just make me look bad. That's what you guys do when debating evolution. You know you can't disprove it, so you resort to trash talk against evolutionists.

Even though you are the one who requested the debate, I do welcome debates and am happy to participate in them. I do not expect intelligent arguments from Christians, especially cult members, but I do demand that, and some courtesy if I am to take such debates seriously.

	You cannot accept corrections. I know it. You claim to be rational but you are not.

I have yet to see anything I need correcting with. If you want to call me irrational, then you need to provide an example of what makes me irrational. Let's not forget, you're the one who believes in God and that you are worthy of eternal damnation for no other sin than just being born. So I'm not sure that you're qualified to say how rational someone is.

	Where did I say or make a hint that I took out the cross examination from the debate? QUOTE IT HERE.

You first stated on the initial conversation page:

	First Affirmative Constructive of A Cross Examination of N - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted) First Negative Constructive of N

But then on the actual debate page, you stated:

	1st set Roland - affirmative side Joe - negative side Roland will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is the true church, according to the Bible. 2nd set Joe - affirmative side Roland - negative side Joe will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is a cult of Christianity.

You took out the cross-examination part. Obviously, I now know this was not your intention, but I was only following your format. If I misunderstood your intentions, a little kinder note would have been more appropriate than your typical Christian garbage talk.

	There's no reason if YOU cannot NEGATE my arguments by asking questions.

I saw no reason because you apparently took out the step and I had no questions anyways, so it was all good. No need to have a heart attack over it. I know God is your healer, but he lets his followers have heart attacks all the time, so don't count on his protection. However, I still could negate your arguments with questions if I wanted to.

	You should inform me and the internet readers. Do not be rude by not informing you are to violate the debate format. It was a mutual agreement.

I am not going to waste more time by informing you first and then waiting half a day for a response before proceeding. I do not see this as being rude. First of all, like I said, I was under the impression that you skipped the cross-examination. Two, again, I did not have any questions, and I don't see what difference it makes whether or not I post that I do not have questions, or if I go ahead and start my rebuttal. It's really not a big deal, especially not the issue you're making it out to be. Even if the majority of persons reading this think that I should have done what you said, I do not deserve the Christian attitude you are giving me. Also, you're going to have to show me where informing you about not asking you questions is part of our mutual agreement. I read it over and couldn't seem to find it.

	Yes it matters UNLESS you are an impolite or bad-mannered debater.

I was referring to the fact that I did not have any questions so that it did not matter whether or not we had a question and answer segment. Again, I am not the one who tells children that they are worthless sinners and that they deserve to burn in Hell forever because they are not perfect. I am not the one who rudely stops persons in the street or knocks on their doors while they're having dinner to try and convince them to join our cult and to give my cult leader money. That would be you. So again, I don't believe you're in a position to tell someone they're being impolite or bad-mannered.

	That means YOU are INCAPABLE of examining my First Affirmative Constructive. YOU cannot NEGATE my arguments by asking questions.

No, that's not what it means. I'm perfectly capable of asking you and negating your arguments with questions. I could very easily thought up questions to ask, but after reading your arguments, none initially came to mind and I was eager to refute instead of asking questions. The direct refutation in my opinion was more effective than asking questions first, especially because the questions were not necessary and it would be a silly waste of time to ask them. Besides, you blindly following a man who claims to be the sole authority on God's word, without asking the necessary questions one needs to ask in order to prove his bogus claims, shows that you are the one incapable.

	It is not an excuse to VIOLATE our debate format.

Perhaps, but I didn't violate it. From now on, if I am going to ask questions, I will. If not, then I will go into direct refute mode...because I'm not going to interrupt the flow of the debate and have to wait forever for your response before I'm allowed to post again.

	Don't speak as if I dictate the rules and you do not have the power to disagree. We must both agree on the terms to this debate.

I'm not. I am simply saying that I have given into a lot of things here and I am trying my best to adhere to all of the guidelines, many of which are your requests. In any case, I don't need Christian mouth from you.

	Before the debate started, I asked you by what name would you like to be addressed.

Yes, and also before the debate, you didn't know who I was, and you were rudely calling me by a different name. I didn't call you by a different name.

	The topics I gave are my suggestions. I even told you too suggest your own.

I realize that, but I'm just saying that I gave you a lot in this debate, so the least you could do was not act like a Christian if I made a mistake in the debate format.

	Since you do not have any disagreements or oppositions at the end of our initial discussion on the other thread, I presume you agree with the rules posted in the previous thread. JUST LIKE WHAT YOU SAID: We must both agree on the terms to this debate.

I still don't know what I violated. Informing you of my decision to not ask questions was not part of the mutual agreement and I saw no reason to waste time by making a seperate post informing that I will not ask questions.

	I do not entertain unsatisfactory excuses.

Oh come on. We both know that's not true. Entertaining unsatisfactory excuses is the only way you can follow the Bible and not consider yourself or God to be evil.

	Your arguments are very easy to answer. No sweat.

Then refute them. I look forward to clobbering your arguments yet again.

	Either of the two you will now choose: 1) You will proceed to your Cross Examination - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted). 2) You will NOT proceed to Cross Examination, meaning YOU are INCAPABLE of examining my First Affirmative Constructive and YOU cannot NEGATE my arguments by asking questions.

I choose option number three. This option states: "I will not proceed to cross examination because I have no questions that I wish to ask."

	See, I am more forgiving than you are.

Forgiving how? Your god is incapable of forgiveness, what makes you think you aren't?

	Well then, PROVE IT by having cross examination questions. Or else you are just a TRASH TALKER.

I DID prove it - with my successful rebuttal of your arguments. I chose not to refute with questions, but with a direct rebuttal instead...and I crushed your arguments. This was more effective than asking questions, in my opinion.

	You are the one who actually invited and encouraged debate from the website you created.

Actually, I'm always welcoming debates from cult members, but you are the one that specifically requested this debate, on your forum and with your rules no less. But put that aside. You can't just say that because I have a website exposing the truth about your cult, that that means I invited you to a debate. Besides, let's not forget the reason why I made that website. From one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, Batman (1989): "I made you, you made me first." In other words, yes, I created the website which is expected to draw the attention of the 4th Watch, but it was because of their evil and immoral practices that caused me to make the site in the first place. You don't like me, but it is your cult that made me. I walked into your cult as Joe Masters. I walked out as Atheist Jesus. Don't worry, I do give you guys credit for helping me to realize just how awful Christianity is.

	Same here, I do not expect intelligent arguments from you.

Then you might be in for some disappointment. I've already destroyed several of your arguments...awaiting for more.

	OK. Choose now: 1) You will proceed to your Cross Examination - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted). 2) You will NOT proceed to Cross Examination, meaning YOU are INCAPABLE of examining my First Affirmative Constructive and YOU cannot NEGATE my arguments by asking questions.