Let's examine it shall we?
It takes him only :14 to tell his first lie, that I was coaching the moderator and that it must be a catholic thing. The problem for Sir Liesalot is that both the moderator and the opponent were on the program and they both agreed with my statements on the proper role of a moderator.
Apparently, lying is a Yarborough thing.
At 1:32, he does it again. Cowardess Debra JM Smith is on record, saying that she wanted to debate if only we met certain (unreasonable) conditions set by her. We met all of those conditions, she folded anyway. We clearly won by forfeit.
It is unarguable.
At 1:57, he- incredibly- calls my claim, that he lost his objectivity, a lie. The 60 second Monty Python opening bit, complete with derisive laughter and belching, shows that my pointing out his lack of objectivity towards Catholics is putting it mildly.
At 2:56, he says that I am claiming that speaking harshley against Catholicism is to be viewed as an attack. Only in his mind, is a full minute of belching, an on-topic criticism. Again, showing
his obvious objectivity *rolling my eyes*
At 3:30-52, I state that it is my opinion that one of the roles of a moderator is to force opponents to stop deliberately avoiding serious points or questions. The moderator agreed that mine was the valid position.
Jimmy Z's text indicates that he disagrees with that position.
We find this opinion a little...shall we say inconsistent? Listen to the debate from May 4th, 2012 and you will be shocked at how unfairly the Catholic side is treated here by the so-called unbiased moderator.
He completely talks over me and denies me the opportunity to ask a question that was needed, for clarification purposes only, then has the gall to accuse me of an Ad Hom attack when I responded to George's claim that my church was a totalitarian regime by dismissing it as a crazy remark (which it obviously was). In short, the moderator is attempting to bully the side he wants to lose. (I won anyway).
He then, has the temerity to claim that I had the responsibility to respond to this, and other Ad Hominem and off-topic attacks. This, in a debate on the proper exegeting of Matthew 16.
I invite you to hear this shockingly biased position ennunciated from 18:12 to 20:05. Here, this so-called moderator claims that it is my responsibility to demonstrate that the Catholic church is not a totalitarian regime? Is he serious? The moderator is committing the burden of proof fallacy. I have no obligation to disprove my opponent's unsubstantiated bile.
Here, Sir Liesalot goes beyond the standard that I advocated- that an opponent must respond to cogent, on topic arguments- and says that it is my responsibility to respond even to purely ad hominem nonsense and to disprove the opponent's unsupported claims!!
In light of this, please consider the sheer gall of his claim that his little sweetheart, cultist Debra JM Smith, had no obligation to respond to our numerous Biblical and historical remarks on the Trinity, Baptism, The Rapture and any number of issues she ran from and continues to run from. The sheer scope of this double standard is beyond imagination. The entire falling out between us resulted from our insistence that she be held to a standard below the one, he HIMSELF enunciated on May 4th but now runs from.
Dirk Yarborough, Sir Liesalot, himself has reached Obamaian levels of dishonesty, hypocrisy and cowardice. Make sure you tell him so.
This debate was a classic example of George coming unglued and lashing out irrationally, while the moderator tries to throw him a life-line.
DTB facebook Page
Blog Talk Radio Show