Is it true Bill Reel backed out of the upcoming debate with Midnight Mormons?

[consiglieri]

The psychopath wants what the psychopath wants.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Another reason for a more intelligent debate opponent than any or all of those three is that they don't understand even the most basic logical fallacies.

I've read Jim Bennett's response to the CES Letter. He'd probably still lose the debate overall, but he can at least construct an intelligent argument. For example, I think he makes a compelling case that at least a few of the women to whom Joseph was sealed were not sexual relationships. Some of them were past childbearing age, and If I recall correctly, the oldest was about 60----unlikely to be very sexually alluring to a man in his 30s.

The MM trio don't even understand that "You can't prove it didn't happen!" isn't a viable argument. Kwaku might just throw up his hands and say he doesn't expect anything to make any logical sense---and then think he's won.

The weakness of Bennett's response to the CES Letter is that most of its points are not fatal when viewed in isolation. It's all of them taken together that are so devastating.

Responding to individual debate questions, he would be a far more worthy opponent.

[Kukulkan]

I wasn't even aware there was another debate that was supposed to happen between Bill Reel and the Midnight Mormons.

[Rivendale]

Another reason for a more intelligent debate opponent than any or all of those three is that they don't understand even the most basic logical fallacies.

I've read Jim Bennett's response to the CES Letter. He'd probably still lose the debate overall, but he can at least construct an intelligent argument. For example, I think he makes a compelling case that at least a few of the women to whom Joseph was sealed were not sexual relationships. Some of them were past childbearing age, and If I recall correctly, the oldest was about 60----unlikely to be very sexually alluring to a man in his 30s.

The MM trio don't even understand that "You can't prove it didn't happen!" isn't a viable argument. Kwaku might just throw up his hands and say he doesn't expect anything to make any logical sense---and then think he's won.

The weakness of Bennett's response to the CES Letter is that most of its points are not fatal when viewed in isolation. It's all of them taken together that are so devastating.

Responding to individual debate questions, he would be a far more worthy opponent.

Remember Jim wouldn't let his daughters stay with Joseph. And he subscribes to the obscure idea that Joseph discovered a Dan Brown code in the Book of Abraham translation.

[Tator]

I wasn't even aware there was another debate that was supposed to happen between Bill Reel and the Midnight Mormons.

I am not sure any debate has taken place yet, but the first place ya go blind is right in the eyes.

[consiglieri]

I wasn't even aware there was another debate that was supposed to happen between Bill Reel and the Midnight Mormons.

That’s because it never went anywhere except for emails between Bill and Kwaku.

And then the Midnight Mormons mocked Bill’s email in a podcast.

And Kwaku accused Bill of having affairs on his wife.

It went downhill from there.

[Kukulkan]

I see. It does seem that there insistence to debate Bill comes with the intent of trying to send him over the edge. Despite their insults I still think Bill should debate them and I hope he eventually will. If he were and the whole time they were to attack him ad-hominem it would only reflect well on him.

So is it safe to assume that your debate with them is still going to happen?

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Remember Jim wouldn't let his daughters stay with Joseph.

Well, yeah, like I said, Bennett isn't a dummy! No thinking person would leave their daughters with Joseph Smith any more than they would with leave them in the care of Josh Duggar.

And he subscribes to the obscure idea that Joseph discovered a Dan Brown code in the Book of Abraham translation.

I'm not sure what this is referring to exactly. I assume he accepts some form of the "inspiration theory" of the Book of Abraham. But I don't recall.

(Keep in mind, I never had any real interest in apologetics even when I was still in. I didn't leave the church because of anything that was later published in the CES Letter. I don't know that I ever would have left over anachronisms or historicity problems. I just got bored. I adored Young Women's and Mutual. In my home ward, the youth really cared about supporting one another and our meetings were all about how we could become more Christ-like. I ate that up with a spoon---and had it stayed that way, I might still be in the church today. They were truly kind and caring teenagers. But once I graduated to Relief Society, it just stopped spiritually feeding me. All we ever did in Relief Society was overanalyze conference talks that possessed all the theological depth of a cookie sheet. That was also when I began to experience serious body-shaming, and I quickly realized that, as a large-breasted woman, I could never meet the stringent requirements of female modesty. My body itself sexualized me and I wasn't interested in hating my body for the rest of my life.)

Sorry, I digress.... I don't recall how Bennett made sense of the Book of Abraham. There was much in his reply to the CES Letter that I found unpersuasive, or even absurd.

But he's no dummy either. I think he has a basic grasp of logical fallacies and would present a far better rebuttal to RFM in a debate than the Unholy Trinity from Midnight Mormons. If nothing else, Bennett seems to have scruples. Those guys have none. And they're simply not bright enough to even realize when they're presenting an incoherent counter-argument.

Bennett is. I probably don't agree with most of what he said in his reply to the CES Letter. But most of it didn't strike me as lacking in the most basic understanding of logical fallacy. He acknowledges that a lot of it comes down to believing things that are rationally implausible. The Unholy Trinity don't even know the difference between plausible and implausible. Kwaku is essentially willing to hand-wave away the Laws of the Universe with his personal theory that the implausible is more common and normal than the plausible. He said as much when he appeared on Mormonism Live.

Besides, Bennett, for whatever his lapses in apologetic reasoning, isn't a total dick.

[consiglieri]

I see. It does seem that there insistence to debate Bill comes with the intent of trying to send him over the edge. Despite their insults I still think Bill should debate them and I hope he eventually will. If he were and the whole time they were to attack him ad-hominem it would only reflect well on him.

So is it safe to assume that your debate with them is still going to happen?

It is set and confirmed.

Although they are now trying to force RFM to add people to his team with the implicit threat they will not debate otherwise.

RFM refuses to be bullied.

[Kishkumen]

I watched their video. Sounds like they are really going to push to change things up to me. They don't like the 3 on 1 and think without Bill it's kind of a waste. They seem upset the situation changed, as they saw it. I'm guessing Cardon in particular will back out and the wibeck kid will likely follow if that happens. Kwaku, though, rechallenged Bill and said he'd never back out of anything. It may get down to kwaku and rfm answering questions at a weird Christian church.

Can't wait.

Quacko only bugs out mid-debate. Not before.