LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, ARROGANCE AND PRIDE
EXPOSING
MY OPPONENT AND OUR MODERATOR'S COLLABORATION AND BIAS SCHEME
NOTE: This blog is made to document a debate that happened just recently where I who stand for the negative side was put silent intentionally by the moderator backed up by my opponent who stands for the affirmative side who wants to prove his prepositional statement "The mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the bible in today’s time. - specifically in the church governance".
Before the debate proper, it has been already emphasized that this debate has rules to observed and it was agreed by both sides where the moderator herself confirmed it claiming she also made the rules that would mean she understood it well. After both debaters presented each constructive argument for the affirmative and negative sides, it was then followed by cross-examination as to prove and test each position's strength and of course be a factual basis for what really is true and reliable.
The cross-examinations part is really been focused on the presentation of each debater where interrogations should be based on what the presenter had said, not on what he/she had not presented for this could be technically misleading and a misrepresentation.
Here is what the debate rule says about cross-examination:
The cross-examinations part is really been focused on the presentation of each debater where interrogations should be based on what the presenter had said, not on what he/she had not presented for this could be technically misleading and a misrepresentation.
Here is what the debate rule says about cross-examination:
"Cross-examination -- valid only IF the Question came from the Opponent's PRESENTATION." - debate rule #12.
while credible reference also defined it clearly,
"Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination. Leading questions may be asked during cross-examination, since the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of statements made during direct examination." - American Bar Association
Both the rules of the debate and what the American Bar Association described what cross-examination is about, agreed that it is centered on testing the credibility of the presenter's statements during a direct examination or should it comes from the presentation of the opponent.
HERE IS EXPOSEE #1!
1) In my opponent's question #3, he asked me to present verses only, and no need to explain, so I respond appropriately as what has been asked and demanded.
I responded properly and gave him my answer from my presentation itself, including the 3 verses he demanded, without explanation from the verses as required.
2) In my opponent's question #4, he used Matt. 23:23, one of the 3 verses I gave in response to his demand included in his question #3 as the subject for his question #4 where I never explained the verses prior to my opponent's demand in his question #3.
To answer my opponent's question properly, I responded his question appropriately compromising not his scheme and taking not his bait of misleading my presentation.
My opponent won't accept my answer emphasizing the context of the verse which was not part of my presentation as his question #4. He then called the help and assistance of the moderator when he failed to execute his plan of asking me a question from his argument clearly not from me.
Look how he himself builds his argument from the verse that never I explained, and it was him who made his statements from it based on his understanding, not from mine. After building his opinion from the verse, he then asked me a question that is not from my statements or presentation but from what he said.
Dealing the matter, knowing well the nature of what cross-examination is all about, the fact that the rules of the debate and even definition about it were so clear, which is to ask the question only from the statements or presentation of the opponent, so I raised an objection and clarification to the moderator to call for an order.
* It's so clear that my opponent's question #4 was not taken from my presentation but from the verse, he demanded as included in his question #3.
* In this part, my opponent took advantage of using the verse he demanded as included in his question #3 which he said I need not explain BUT it was him who inserted his opinion on it where he took his question #4, saying,
"He quoted the verse, Matt 23:23 as his reference when he said; “God mandated 10%” but, the verse did not say anything on to whom shall it be given but it says the aspect of the law.
Since it came from God, not from him. Did God said anything in the bible about to WHOM shall it be given in the aspect of the law?"
HERE ARE NOW VIOLATIONS THAT NEVER THE MODERATOR CALLED THE ATTENTION OF MY OPPONENT AS REPRIMANDING HIM.
NO! - It was taken from one of the 3 verses my opponent demanded as included in his question #3 that he even said, I need not to explain it.
2. Was it proper for my opponent to make his opinion and observation to Matt. 23:23 wherefrom it, he'll draw his question which is already not part of my presentation?
NO! - It is no longer my words and not even my presentation, but my opponent's manipulation which misleads and misrepresents my negative arguments presented which is subject for defense.
3. How come the moderator never called the attention of my opponent and made appropriate actions, INSTEAD she favored the "out of context" and inappropriate question be VALID as saying it was the dictate of her opinion without considering the rules of the debate?
The moderator herself forget her role to moderate appropriately and considering not the stipulated rules she needs to implement. The question of the opponent wasn't based on my presentation but from a verse never I presented.
4. The worst part of it, was that the moderator herself gave me a LAST WARNING as if it was me who violated debate rules. She even scared me of saying "My decision is final" using rule #7 as her weapon.
"Debaters are NOT allowed to Argue with each other and to the Moderators decision. The Debaters were OBLIGED to follow INSTRUCTION from The Moderator. The Moderator has the power to impose +1 in every violation of this particular rule or NO RECORD OF COMPLIANCE from the Debaters." - rule #7.
5. Then my opponent thanked her and appreciate her so much for the favor.
6. The moderator used rule #7 but neglected some rules she herself claimed created it such as these rules:
"Cross-exam -- valid only IF the Question came from the Opponent's PRESENTATION." - rule #12
"Clarifications or OBJECTIONS to the questions and answers of both Debaters should be raise directly to the Moderator. The Debaters are NOT allowed to make an argument with each other during the CROSS-EXAM. All they have to do is to ASK and ANSWER." - rule #13
* If the question should be taken only from the opponent's presentation so it would also be that the opponent been asked should also answer based on his presentation NOT from the presentation of the opponent who took the privilege of cross-examining the presentation of the opponent.
* In this case, the moderator herself showed impartiality at the start of the debate during the cross-examination part held by the affirmative side by:
a) not implementing the rules appropriately but been bias siding the affirmative presenter,
b) used her authority as declaring it as absolute that it even overruled rule #12 and #13 as insisting rule #7 be observed only.
-------------------------------------------0Oo------------------------------------------
The attitude of my opponent's way of cross-examining me, the majority of it was not actually based on my presentation but based on his opinion or my answers to his previous questions. These are the follow-up questions from my answers and I never objected any the fact that I know, those were related partly to my presentation such as the following questions:
QUESTION #5: "Who are these persons to whom he said God mandated the 10% to provide for their needs?
Answer with a verse or verses only stating on who are these people that God mandated the 10% to provide for their needs. The verses must contain the subject of the question which are.
1.) Who are these people?
2.) The word 10% or tithe specifically since the subject at hand is 10%.
Ms. Moderator, I would like to request for him to be categorical in his answer. I ask only to answer in a verse or verses. No explanation, just answer in verses satisfying the subject of the question as above and that's it."
QUESTION #6: "Is living by the Gospel the same as living by the 10% or tithe?
Answer with YES and NO only. No explanation.
QUESTION #7: "Do you imitate them (the apostles) as your model in particular to what they have done on their right for help or support?
Answer with Yes or No only."
QUESTION #8: "Can he provide proof whether his legitimate non-profit religious institution says as he claims in their by-laws that according to the claim, their by-laws IMPOSE AND MANDATE its constituents to obey it, in particular, to give the 10% since the topic is about the 10%?
1.) Who are these people?
2.) The word 10% or tithe specifically since the subject at hand is 10%.
Ms. Moderator, I would like to request for him to be categorical in his answer. I ask only to answer in a verse or verses. No explanation, just answer in verses satisfying the subject of the question as above and that's it."
QUESTION #6: "Is living by the Gospel the same as living by the 10% or tithe?
Answer with YES and NO only. No explanation.
QUESTION #7: "Do you imitate them (the apostles) as your model in particular to what they have done on their right for help or support?
Answer with Yes or No only."
QUESTION #8: "Can he provide proof whether his legitimate non-profit religious institution says as he claims in their by-laws that according to the claim, their by-laws IMPOSE AND MANDATE its constituents to obey it, in particular, to give the 10% since the topic is about the 10%?
Kindly attached here a screenshot of the BY-LAWS showing the claim."
QUESTION #9: "The government authorities who are simply men as you claimed to have the right to amend and use the ordinance of Mal 3:10 - a verse which was spoken by God himself, what then did they amend in particular to Mal 3:10?
Pls, specify the changes or amendment they have done on this verse."
QUESTION #10: "In the verse above, we read that those who preach the gospel have the commandment to live from the gospel.
Did the verse mentioned whether the constituents who do not preach has also the commandment to give 10% of their income so that the preacher may live from the gospel?
Answer with Yes or No first, then explain your answer. I’m being specific on the verse alone."
QUESTION #11: "Does your legitimate religious institutions BY-LAWS, as submitted to SEC really, say as you claimed that it IMPOSES and MANDATE its constituents to give 10% of their income?
I’m referring to their BY-LAWS as submitted to SEC, I’m being specific this time. He must be referring to this since he claimed to be legitimate, meaning, they must have filed their BY-LAWS at SEC and must have a copy of this therefore if he is willing, he can show proof to confirm that his claim is not a bluff."
QUESTION #12: "He mentioned Legitimate religious institutions, I believe a religious institution is a non-profit corporation.
My question is since he used the word impose and mandate were to impose means force as attached. Is it allowed or even legal for a non-profit corporation to FORCE its constituents to give 10% of their income?"
QUESTION #13: "Since he mentioned Legitimate religious institutions and I believe, these are public non-profit corporations.
My question is, since the religious institution your with is a public non-profit corporation. Documents like UPCI manuals where policies and by-laws are written, are you sure that these documents even the draft of it (unofficial) need to be requested formally because these are not available for public view?
You may answer in Yes or No only."
QUESTION #14: "He mentioned that Donation of the tenth portion was common in the ancient world- before Moses. Common is when at least 2 or more people had done it. And, common in a sense that, the recipient of it was not only one person so that it was done also in other places as he claimed.
As far as the bible is concerned, I read only that Abraham tithed and Jacob vowed to give a tenth but no record that it was fulfilled in his lifetime. Therefore, biblically it was only Abraham who actually tithed to a priest who was described to have no beginning nor end of life but, he claimed it was common apparently. So, there could be other people at that time who were also like Melchizedek- no beginning nor end of life to whom like Abraham, people give also 10%.
My question is, can you name any other person in the bible and/or in ancient times who was like Melchizedek - no beginning nor end of life so that it was common for people to give 10% and or tribute to the likes of Melchizedek?"
QUESTION #15: "Who are you or who authorized you - a mere man to amend or change God’s mandate about the 10% so that you may receive it when you are not the one mandated by God to collect it?
I’m under the impression that the one who mandates has the only authority to amend it. God is the one who mandated the 10% not man but, you and the likes of you- a mere man had amended God’s mandate. So, who are you or authorized to amend God’s mandate on 10%?
Explain!"
Her posts about giving me a +1 violation were deleted already and what remained in the thread was the proof of my acceptance to it that I kept.
"Brian K. Morley - which he used also as his credible source says; “Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent” https://www.biblestudytools.com/.../tithe-tithing.html"
The link my opponent provided cannot lie that it showed the whole context of what Dr. Morley had said, pls. compare:
Brian K. Morley - "Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10%, but it does reiterate many things associated with Tithing, those who minister are entitled to receive support. (1 Cor. 9:14)"
The moderator quickly accepted his request and favored him, giving him the immunity that he could no longer be questioned of what he's doing, specifically why he intentionally removed a statement which is part of the context Dr. Morley had said quoting 1 Cor. 9:14, "but it does reiterate many things associated with Tithing, those who minister are entitled to receive support. (1 Cor. 9:14)".
HERE ARE NOW ACTIONS THAT MODERATOR HERSELF DID, SHOWING IMPARTIALITY AND OBVIOUSLY SIDING MY OPPONENT.
1. During my opponent's time for cross-examination, did my opponent asked questions not from my presentation but from a statement he built of what he demanded from me which he included it being part of his question?
YES! It was taken from a verse my opponent demanded as included in his question that he even said, I need not explain it.
2. During my opponent's time for cross-examination, did the moderator favored what he did in asking questions not from my presentation but from my opponent's opinion?
YES! She rejected my complaint and demanded I answer my opponent's question justifying it was part of the theme of the debate without considering my objections and clarifications with bearings from the rules of the debate regarding cross-examination.
3. During my time for cross-examination, did I asked my opponent questions that were based on my opinion and not from statements of my opponent related to his answers and presentation?
NO! Not even once. I know my focus, which is to destroy the claims of my opponent based on his preposition not based on my stand.
4. During my time for cross-examination, did the moderator favored again my opponent in not answering my question directly but took his answers not from his presentation but from mine?
YES! Too obvious, my opponent took not his answers as to defend his stance and his answers related from his presentation but focusing on my previous answers to his cross-examination which is already misleading and the misrepresentation the fact that it is subject for my defense. What my opponent did were rebuttal and conclusion.
"Cross-examination -- Valid only IF the Question came from the Opponent's PRESENTATION.
a.) ---- Questions should be at the BOTTOM of the comment.
---- On TOP of it, is the opponent's statement from his PRESENTATION copy pasted for reference where the question came from."
1. "he implied that the term..."
2. "since in his proper word study..."
3. "my opponent actually helped me to prove my case..."
more exposure ...
QUESTION #9: "The government authorities who are simply men as you claimed to have the right to amend and use the ordinance of Mal 3:10 - a verse which was spoken by God himself, what then did they amend in particular to Mal 3:10?
Pls, specify the changes or amendment they have done on this verse."
QUESTION #10: "In the verse above, we read that those who preach the gospel have the commandment to live from the gospel.
Did the verse mentioned whether the constituents who do not preach has also the commandment to give 10% of their income so that the preacher may live from the gospel?
Answer with Yes or No first, then explain your answer. I’m being specific on the verse alone."
QUESTION #11: "Does your legitimate religious institutions BY-LAWS, as submitted to SEC really, say as you claimed that it IMPOSES and MANDATE its constituents to give 10% of their income?
I’m referring to their BY-LAWS as submitted to SEC, I’m being specific this time. He must be referring to this since he claimed to be legitimate, meaning, they must have filed their BY-LAWS at SEC and must have a copy of this therefore if he is willing, he can show proof to confirm that his claim is not a bluff."
QUESTION #12: "He mentioned Legitimate religious institutions, I believe a religious institution is a non-profit corporation.
My question is since he used the word impose and mandate were to impose means force as attached. Is it allowed or even legal for a non-profit corporation to FORCE its constituents to give 10% of their income?"
QUESTION #13: "Since he mentioned Legitimate religious institutions and I believe, these are public non-profit corporations.
My question is, since the religious institution your with is a public non-profit corporation. Documents like UPCI manuals where policies and by-laws are written, are you sure that these documents even the draft of it (unofficial) need to be requested formally because these are not available for public view?
You may answer in Yes or No only."
QUESTION #14: "He mentioned that Donation of the tenth portion was common in the ancient world- before Moses. Common is when at least 2 or more people had done it. And, common in a sense that, the recipient of it was not only one person so that it was done also in other places as he claimed.
As far as the bible is concerned, I read only that Abraham tithed and Jacob vowed to give a tenth but no record that it was fulfilled in his lifetime. Therefore, biblically it was only Abraham who actually tithed to a priest who was described to have no beginning nor end of life but, he claimed it was common apparently. So, there could be other people at that time who were also like Melchizedek- no beginning nor end of life to whom like Abraham, people give also 10%.
My question is, can you name any other person in the bible and/or in ancient times who was like Melchizedek - no beginning nor end of life so that it was common for people to give 10% and or tribute to the likes of Melchizedek?"
QUESTION #15: "Who are you or who authorized you - a mere man to amend or change God’s mandate about the 10% so that you may receive it when you are not the one mandated by God to collect it?
I’m under the impression that the one who mandates has the only authority to amend it. God is the one who mandated the 10% not man but, you and the likes of you- a mere man had amended God’s mandate. So, who are you or authorized to amend God’s mandate on 10%?
Explain!"
Most of the questions thrown to me were not part of my presentation but based on my opponent's assumptions that actually were violations of the stipulated rules of the debate.
The proof of it can actually be observed in my opponent's question itself where he wasn't showing a copy/paste of his questions reference which should be based on my presentation, but I no longer object as the moderator scared me to impose rule #7 again.
Her posts about giving me a +1 violation were deleted already and what remained in the thread was the proof of my acceptance to it that I kept.
It was in this manner then as well I considered also my opponent's questions as follow up questions from my answers as justifying it for the reason that he'll be done presenting his 15 questions that I can do my part in return expecting he'll also deal me fairly of answering my follow up questions to his answers.
LOOK WHAT HE DID IN RETURN. Please notice how my opponent responded to my 1st question. It was too obvious that he mentioned Dr. Morley's comments claiming him as top of his credible reference where my opponent cut off the context of the quotations he used part of his answers.
"Brian K. Morley - which he used also as his credible source says; “Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent” https://www.biblestudytools.com/.../tithe-tithing.html"
The link my opponent provided cannot lie that it showed the whole context of what Dr. Morley had said, pls. compare:
This was then the primary basis for my 2nd question as to ask why my opponent cut off the context of what Dr. Morley has said, which obviously can be traced in the link he himself provided. His reactions clearly showed up being guilty in destroying the thought of what Dr. Morley whom my opponent claimed to be top of his credible reference and to hide he then called the attention of the moderator for a rescue.
Was my question part of my opponent's answer related to his presentation, in fact, he was claiming Dr. Morley himself was an anti-tithe like him? YES!
It was in this part contentions were magnified that I myself can no longer tolerate it. I made OBJECTIONS and CLARIFICATIONS but the moderator reacted and gave me continuous violations citing rule #7 redundantly. Doubting now her credibility to moderate fairly, I am even deprived of calling the attention of the other admins and moderator, imposing more violations to me, instead of declaring herself as having the absolute authority in the forum she herself has created.
It was in this part contentions were magnified that I myself can no longer tolerate it. I made OBJECTIONS and CLARIFICATIONS but the moderator reacted and gave me continuous violations citing rule #7 redundantly. Doubting now her credibility to moderate fairly, I am even deprived of calling the attention of the other admins and moderator, imposing more violations to me, instead of declaring herself as having the absolute authority in the forum she herself has created.
HERE ARE NOW ACTIONS THAT MODERATOR HERSELF DID, SHOWING IMPARTIALITY AND OBVIOUSLY SIDING MY OPPONENT.
1. During my opponent's time for cross-examination, did my opponent asked questions not from my presentation but from a statement he built of what he demanded from me which he included it being part of his question?
YES! It was taken from a verse my opponent demanded as included in his question that he even said, I need not explain it.
2. During my opponent's time for cross-examination, did the moderator favored what he did in asking questions not from my presentation but from my opponent's opinion?
YES! She rejected my complaint and demanded I answer my opponent's question justifying it was part of the theme of the debate without considering my objections and clarifications with bearings from the rules of the debate regarding cross-examination.
3. During my time for cross-examination, did I asked my opponent questions that were based on my opinion and not from statements of my opponent related to his answers and presentation?
NO! Not even once. I know my focus, which is to destroy the claims of my opponent based on his preposition not based on my stand.
4. During my time for cross-examination, did the moderator favored again my opponent in not answering my question directly but took his answers not from his presentation but from mine?
YES! Too obvious, my opponent took not his answers as to defend his stance and his answers related from his presentation but focusing on my previous answers to his cross-examination which is already misleading and the misrepresentation the fact that it is subject for my defense. What my opponent did were rebuttal and conclusion.
PROOF
Here is my cross-examination based on my opponent's proposition.
LOOK HOW MY OPPONENT RESPONDED MY QUESTION.
He took not his answers from his stand and presentation but building a fallacy from the presentation which is already a clear violation to rule #12.
"Cross-examination -- Valid only IF the Question came from the Opponent's PRESENTATION.
a.) ---- Questions should be at the BOTTOM of the comment.
---- On TOP of it, is the opponent's statement from his PRESENTATION copy pasted for reference where the question came from."
WHY THEN MY OPPONENT SAID THESE when he was cross-examined?
He tried to explain my presentation and used it as a diversionary tactic denying to be interrogated.
He tried to explain my presentation and used it as a diversionary tactic denying to be interrogated.
1. "he implied that the term..."
2. "since in his proper word study..."
3. "my opponent actually helped me to prove my case..."
His response turned out to be allegations as attacking my presentation destroying the context of what I said. These are subject to defense and no longer part of my cross-examination of his preposition.
These are proofs that my opponent allegedly attacked and maligned my presentation and build his lies using it to fail of answering my cross-examination where the moderator herself favored him again.
Pls. help my opponent find his allegations to be true in my presentation or even in all my answers to his cross-examinations to the link provided. The lists of my presentation and answers to all his questions during his cross-examination will just expose his lies and false allegations.
or try this link https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/06/my-constructive-argument-tithe-mandate.html
or try this link https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/06/my-answers-to-cross-examination-tithe.html
more exposure ...
