I didn't admit anything. I told you not to act like a Christian if I made a mistake. I never said that I did. I suspect you might be mistaken because of language. I understand English is probably not your first language, so I'm willing to forgive you for such mistakes.

The word if may mean a possibility, or an Actual accomplished thing. In your statement above, it is an actual accomplished thing. You have been talking about my action, which I did because I wanted to correct you, nevertheless you cannot accept. You called my action as a "Christian act". So you told me not to "act like a Christian" if you made a mistake. By saying that, you equated the two: I will "act like a Christian," if "you made a mistake". And since you have seen my "Christian act," it only means "you have made a mistake."

Thank you for admitting.

	I did not take out the cross examination part. Yes you did. It just wasn't your intent. You made a mistake. It's okay, I forgive you.

Since the debate proper and debate format are very clear, there's no proof of taking out the cross examination part. It's just YOU CANNOT ACCEPT CORRECTIONS.

	The debate proper and debate format below is very clear. It was clear before, but you changed it, so it then became unclear.

I did not change the debate proper and debate format.
On the actual debate page, I posted this:
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.
The debate proper states that there will be two sets for the debate. In either of the sets, one is in the affirmative side, and another is in the negative side.
VERY CLEAR.

	I already proved you wrong with a direct rebuttal. The direct rebuttal is more effective and asking questions will only waste time. I know you are taught to not value your life, so you can allow yourself to waste all the time you want, but I do value my life, and I spend time the most effective ways possible. There is just no value in proving you wrong with questions at this time. I could also write a book about your cult leader typing with one finger, but there's no point in doing that, as it's less effective and wastes more time. It's the same with asking you questions here. I have no desire to ask you questions, and this is a choice you are going to have to respect, even though I know respect is also not a Christian trait.

The fact that you cannot cross examine me proves YOU CANNOT NEGATE my affirmative constructive.

	When I have questions for you, I will ask them. Do not try to force me to ask you questions I do not wish to ask.

I will not tolerate VIOLATORS of forum rules. You need to be CORRECTED.

	You have yet to tell me what mistake I made.

See above reply.

	Since YOU SAID that we must both agree on the terms to this debate, you should be courteous enough to let me know if you are to VIOLATE the terms of debate. I agree, and if I actually intended to violate any of the terms, then I would definitely notify you. But since I didn't violate any, there was no need to.

By not posting cross examination questions is a CLEAR VIOLATION.

	It matters because it is an agreed debate format. Violating it means you are impolite or bad-mannered. Again, 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 on 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.

It matters because it is in the rules.

	That wasn't a rule that we agreed on in the first place.

We agreed on the following:
1) Debate topic
2) Terms of debate (debate rules, debate proper, debate format)
3) Coin toss

	I already successfully crushed your arguments in a direct rebuttal.

The fact that you cannot cross examine me proves YOU CANNOT NEGATE my affirmative constructive.

	Then NOW you should negate my affirmative constructive by asking questions in your cross examination, if you are trying your best to adhere to ALL of the guidelines. But I know YOU are SIMPLY INCAPABLE of doing it. No, I shouldn't, because my strategy of directly refuting you is more effective than by asking you questions. Adhering to ALL of the guidelines does not mean having to ask questions. The guidelines that you are referring to only give me the opportunity to ask questions, it doesn't mean I have to. The fact that you are so obsessive about making me ask questions makes me suspect that you want me to, perhaps because you are expecting certain questions that you believe you have clever responses for, and you are mad because I'm not giving you that opportunity. I see no other reason why you would be so obsessed with me asking you questions.

Then YOU ARE NOT adhering to the guidelines. You must follow the rules, proper and format of the debate. Do not be a VIOLATOR.

	Once again, you do not know me, so you have no just reason to call me by any name unless you know what my name is. How would you like it if I called you "Frank" or "Jessica". You are rude and your Christian teachings no doubt influence your behavior.

The head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA, so I addressed you by that name.

	BEFORE I suggested the topics, you said: You may start. Yes I did. What's your point? Your answer does not address what I said in my paragraph. You portray an inability to properly relate answers to their questions. It is no wonder why you believe in the garbage that your cult leaders tell you.

Too funny you cannot understand simple logic. That post of yours is just a part of the posts I quoted to prove that you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics.

	No, I did give a lot. And that is why I expect some forgiveness from you if I was to make a mistake in following your format. But once again, your answer here did not properly address what I said.

You were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics

	Yes, because addressing your crap is important. Again, it's all about using your time wisely. I take the time to address your statements here because it is worth spending the time. The public needs to know that I am right and that you are wrong, and just as importantly, why.

Nice try, but the more you post regarding your defense of your violation, the more the public sees your cowardice and mistakes.

	Like I said, entertaining unsatisfactory excuses is necessary to your ridiculous beliefs.

You use unsatisfactory excuses to rationalize your mistakes.

	With you, I won't hold my breath.

Then you will be disappointed.

	See, now I'm convinced that you want me to ask you questions due to some reason you're not telling me. You're just going to have to face the fact that I already destroyed your arguments and I have no questions to ask you.

You haven't destroyed anything. You cannot even ask questions.

	Another story of deliberate attempt to VIOLATE the debate format by choosing not to ask questions. No it's not, because I have the choice not to ask questions, and I chose not to.

You are in a formal online debate. You have no other choice but to FOLLOW the RULES.

	In the Contact Us page of your website, you invite and encourage debate from everyone. Yes, that's pretty much what I just told you. But again, you are the one that requested this particular debate, with your own guidelines and place to carry it out. And again, you implied that just by making the website, that I was asking for a debate with you, which is not the case. Once again, I do welcome debates, but they have to be initiated by someone, and you're the one who did that.

I requested a debate because of your invitation and encouragement to debate.

	You are certainly welcome to prove to me that our accusations are false, but you've put in very little effort to do so so far. On the site, we expose many of the lies that you people tell, so tell us what our lies are.

Wait for the 2nd set of the debate.

	That too is one of my favorite movies, and Superman is one of my idols. In fact, that is also one of my favorite quotes. But the thing you are forgetting is that Superman fought evil, and your cult leader and his organization are evil. You do not fight for truth, justice, and the American way - as Christianity and most especially your cult, go completely against these things. Truth? The Bible teaches a flat earth and that it's only a few thousand years old. Enough said about your "truth". Justice? You believe that we deserve eternal punishment only for being born, and you worship someone who has committed an extreme amount of evil. The American way? The American way is happiness, equality, and freedom. You cult members do not want the American way, you want Arsenio Ferriol's version of Christianity to be your only way.

You will have to prove your false accusations in the 2nd set of the debate.

	One of my other favorite quotes is also from Batman Returns (1992), and it is a fantasy of mine to say it to your cult leader if he ever started to talk to me. It goes like this: "Shut up, you're going to jail."

Jaws (1975) - "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

	Then you're going to have a lot of explaining to do. But you seem like you're trying to stall. Are you scared? Of course you are.

I am not scared. You are. You are afraid to cross examine me by asking questions.

	As I said, I am perfectly capable of examining your argument, but I've already done that without having to ask you questions. And yes, now you're finally getting it. I "waived" my opportunity to do this, which is what I've been trying to tell you all along. Why it took you so long to figure this out, I'll never know. And yes, my post was my "first negative constructive", so go ahead and cross examine me.

You cannot prove your alibi, but I can prove YOU MADE A MISTAKE.

	You took out the cross-examination part. Obviously, I now know this was not your intention, but I was only following your format.

You said, "I NOW know," which means before, "you DID NOT know."You have misinterpreted my intention. And according to you, this MISTAKE is EVIDENT, because you said the word OBVIOUSLY.

QUESTION 1:
What did you say, "I knew beforehand" or "I now know?"

	Dude, you made a mistake. It's okay. I forgive you. You don't have to try to put the blame on someone else. I know you feel this is morally acceptable because that's what God allowed persons to do in order to have others punished instead of themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. The fault is yours. And I know you're not used to forgiveness since you worship a God who teaches against it, but I still will forgive you.

I NEED PROOFS. You are nothing but talking nonsense here. Post here the proof that I took out the cross examination part, and changed the debate proper and debate format. Again, below is the PROOF that I DID NOT TAKE OUT the cross examination part, and I DID NOT CHANGE the debate proper and debate format.

On the actual debate page, I posted this:

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.

The debate proper states that there will be two sets for the debate. In either of the sets, one is in the affirmative side, and another is in the negative side.

	Once again, I can cross examine you, but I choose not to because my current strategy is more effective. It's really not that hard to understand, but I suppose to a Christian cult member, it would be.

You chose not to cross examine me because YOU CANNOT NEGATE my affirmative constructive.

	I will not tolerate VIOLATORS of forum rules. Neither will I. It's a good thing neither of us have done that yet.

It's a bad thing you have VIOLATED the forum rules. You DID NOT FOLLOW the debate format.

QUESTION 3:
In our debate format, what follows right after the First Affirmative Constructive of A: "First Negative Constructive of N" or "Cross Examination of N?"

	You've failed to show me anything I need correcting with.

See my posts above and answer the questions.

	By not posting cross examination questions is a CLEAR VIOLATION. No it's not, because you can choose not to ask questions, and this is still what you're not getting.

QUESTION 4:
If a debater chose NOT to USE his parts, let us say he DID NOT USE ALL of the following: First Cross Examination of N, First Negative Constructive of N, Second Cross Examination of N, Second Negative Constructive of N, and Third Cross Examination of N, is he following the debate format, or NOT?"

	Again, 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 on 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.

You didn't have any questions, therefore YOU are INCAPABLE of examining my First Affirmative Constructive.

	We agreed on the following: 1) Debate topic 2) Terms of debate (debate rules, debate proper, debate format) 3) Coin toss Yep, and no where in that does it say I have to ask questions

Here it is, in blue below:

Debate Format
A refers to the member in the affirmative side.
N refers to the member in the negative side.
In either of the sets, here is the format:
First Affirmative Constructive of A
Cross Examination of N - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted)
First Negative Constructive of N
Cross Examination of A - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted)
Second Affirmative Constructive of A
Cross Examination of N - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted)
Second Negative Constructive of N
Cross Examination of A - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted)
Third Affirmative Constructive of A
Cross Examination of N - at most 5 questions (follow-up questions are counted)

	or notify you that I'm not going to. You still have yet to show me where it says that. I can see I'm going to have a very easy time refuting claims you say are supported by the Bible, ‘cause you're never going to be able to show me where those verses are!

Since YOU SAID that we must both agree on the terms to this debate, you should be courteous enough to let me know if you are to VIOLATE the terms of debate.

	Again, I can cross examine you, but chose not to. I more effectively crushed your arguments in a direct rebuttal.

You cannot cross examine me because you didn't have any questions.

	Yes I am adhering to the guidelines. And yes I am following the rules, proper, and format. And no, I'm not a violator. I don't have to ask questions and I don't have to notify you. And you have yet to show me where we those two things are mentioned in our terms.

See my posts above.

	If you insist on calling me a different name, I will also choose my own name for you, one that fits you better. Instead of trying to respect your real name and call you Roland, I'll just call you cult member, or how ‘bout Arsenio's puppet? Would either of those be acceptable to you?

QUESTION 5:
Do you accept that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA?

	Too funny you cannot understand simple logic. That post of yours is just a part of the posts I quoted to prove that you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. Yes,

Now you know that you cannot understand simple logic.

	and again, that did not relate properly to the issue. You have little sense of reasoning.

That was the reply for your statement, "I gave you a lot in this debate." Too funny you cannot understand simple logic.

	Once again, you portray an inability to properly relate answers to their questions. You make no sense. You provide answers to questions that didn't ask anything relating to your answer.

I MUST CORRECT YOU again. First, it was not an answer to any question. Second, there was no question in my quote. Try to review my post last March 30, 2011 at 6:24 pm. You ought to be embarrassed.

	Everyone can clearly see that you're making an ass of yourself, and I can't wait to post this on my site so that everyone can see it. Persons who understand logic are going to get a kick out of it!

Go ahead and post this to your site so that they will see how you defend your violation.

	Haven't made any mistakes yet so far...if I had, you would have shown me what they are already.

See above posts.

	Trust me, your cult is already a disappointment, but so far you have been slow in this debate and you have not made one single strong argument so far. Plus, you have shown an extreme inability to comprehend logic.

I do not trust atheists. Especially you who cannot understand simple logic.

	Try to NEGATE my arguments by asking questions, you will see. But I know YOU CANNOT. Roland, I can also send a picture of my penis to Maritess Ferriol and masturbate to the thought of her touching it...but it's more effective to just masturbate to her without having to pay for the postage. So as you can see, it's not that I can't do it, it's just that I choose not to. It's really a simple concept. Just as I can ask questions, I choose not to do it because my alternative is a better plan of attack. Asking me to prove that I can ask you questions is like asking me to send a picture of my penis to Maritess Ferriol. Is that what you want me to do?

You have to ask questions. The alternative you are talking about is not really an alternative, because posting your First Negative Constructive is a MUST and it is not an alternative. Likewise, having a Cross Examination is a MUST and not an alternative. It is in the debate format which we BOTH AGREED UPON and you must follow that.

In addition, the above post of yours VIOLATES the following debate rule:

3) No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images. Both parties will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, against another member.

You are a VIOLATOR of forum rules. THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW IT. Since we do not have a moderator to WARN YOU of your violations and DISQUALIFY YOU as a debater, I will be the one to CORRECT YOU since it is in your character to DISOBEY RULES.

	You haven't destroyed anything. You cannot even ask questions. Incorrect. I did destroy your arguments, and I did it without even having to ask questions. Lol.

The fact that you cannot ask questions proves that you cannot destroy my arguments.

	You are in a formal online debate. You have no other choice but to FOLLOW the RULES. Correct. It's a good thing we're both following the rules then.

The fact that you DID NOT FOLLOW THE DEBATE FORMAT proves that you are NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES.

	I requested a debate because of your invitation and encouragement to debate. Great, but remember, you're the one who requested it and that I demand decent courtesy if I am to take the debate seriously.

I am the one who requested the debate. But initially you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate.

	You will have to prove your false accusations in the 2nd set of the debate. I look forward to it.

You look forward to the next set, full of violations from you.

	"Test your might." - Mortal Kombat (1995)

X-Men (2000) - "Just shoot it"!

	Lol. Yep, you're scared. It's so obvious. You're so angry because I didn't ask certain questions that you hoped I would, because you had clever responses to them. Don't worry Roland, I would have destroyed those too.

I have clever responses to all of your questions. But you are INCAPABLE of asking questions because you CANNOT NEGATE my affirmative constructive in the first place.

	Let me educate you a little here. Choosing not to ask questions is called "waiving".

Yes, I placed it to HELP YOU.

	The particular word does not have to be displayed in the terms in order to make use of it. As long as you are able to choose not to ask questions, you are able to waive. I can't believe you don't get the simplest things. And I don't need any help in choosing not to ask questions. Lol.

A formal debate has explicit rules, proper, and format. It is the responsibility of debaters to FOLLOW the terms. In our terms, waiving a debate part is not stated. Since it is not stated in the terms, it is debaters' responsibility to perform their parts completely. Skipping a part is not allowed. But in order to HELP YOU, I permitted you to waive your cross examination period, although originally it is not permissible (it has to be written explicitly).

	That's an incomplete sentence which doesn't ask a question.

That is a complete sentence, and it doesn't ask a question. It just points out that the first question is according to the verse Acts 1:7.