Atheist comedian whips Frank Walton!

Atheist stand-up comedian, Keith Lowell Jensen, wrote a blog about Frank Walton's debate style on MySpace.

Click here to see Frank Walton™ try his best to defend himself but gets his butt whipped! Like this part:

===========================

Hey combover,

I find it strange you would devote two blog posts on yours truly even after you gave me the idea you weren't interested in having any further discourse with me. Looks like someone is holding a grudge. But have it your way.

"1) Lots of insults and name calling. Some good ones are baldspot, skank and nincompoop. If you can find a physical attribute that you think your opponent may be insecure about be sure to capitilize on it. Another effective approach is name calling: If you have a young women wearing anything more revealing than a burka. Calling her a slut or a tramp is a time honored and still often effective approach. "

More than a burka? That's a strawman. I don't care if a girl wears a T-shirt, but if she comes out topless that's another story. If you actually saw the footage that Kelly put herself in you would indeed call her a skank. Like most sluts she decided to flash the camera revealing all but two mosquito bites as if she had something to show. But she didn't. And did it hurt your feelings, when I revealed the obvious, Keithy-poo? Sorry, but if you couldn't tell, your comb over can't hide the fact that you're as bald as a baby's bottom. But I'll name it as I see it. If you lie, I'll call you a liar. If you act promiscuously, I'll call you a slut (or a pig if you're a male). If you cower away, I'll call you a coward. If you dodge a part of an argument, I'll call you a dodger. I'm as honest as I possibly can be, Keith.

Also, if an atheist likes to insult I'll insult him right back. I'm just using the same tone and euphemisms atheists like to use :o)

Keith, I am mean and arrogant and I will on occassion insult people. Get over it.

"2) Ask questions that make no sense and when the person your debating asks for clarification refuse. Announce yourself superior.
Examples: "Begs the question" (be sure not to state what the question is and if someone suggests it's not clear, WHAM, you win.) Another example, "How do you justify logic." Refuse to state your cryptic argument any better than this. "

You think when someone asks to justify logic that that doesn't make sense? Now THAT doesn't make sense. LOL! Thank you for revealing your incomprehension of basic and common questions more skilled philosophers would ask. I wouldn't say I won a debate if someone just doesn't understand a question though. That's an unfair assessment. When someone asks me to clarify a question, I'll do it.

"3) Set your blog comments to appear by your approval so you can pick and choose which you let through. THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT."

It is, Keith. RRS does the same thing too. Furthermore, they ban people in their forums some times. They had to lie to ban me from their website. Anyway, often I would receive threats and inappropriate material (profanity, pornographic links, etc.) in my blog comments so I had no choice but to put the comments in "approval" mode. I'm not surprsied you haven't even bothered thinking that that happens, or *SHRUGS* maybe you don't even care.

"4) Try to find personal information on the person you want to tear apart. Present in a ridiculously biased manner. For instance, "With the help of his devoted girlfriend, Sapient has built a strong following that is gaining momentum from his basement!" becomes a slanderous attack on this freeloading loser who lives in his mom's basement. "

Guilty as charged. However, I wouldn't exploit personal information like someone's home address or phone number. Some atheists found out about my wife's name and our address and phone number. And guess what? We received plenty of threats. I had an atheist telling me he'd lynch my "nigger ass" while raping my wife in front of me. But if a 30-year-old lives with his momma in her basement and has no day job and only has his girlfriend providing for his expenses, well, a person like that deserves to be reprimanded. Brian "basment boy" Sapient needs a life. A man like that can hardly be called a "man."

"5) Refuse to debate the chief subject of your attacks on his forum, saying he doesn't debate on fair grounds, but still present every debate he is in, where he of course has an unfair advantage, as an example of him losing."

Where did I do that? As I mentioned I went to RRS' forum where I kicked some butt, they couldn't handle it so they had to lie to ban me (they accused me of something I didn't do). See here:

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/09/rational-responders-ban-me-and-i-was.html

However, if an atheist was put at an unfair advantage I'd mention it. But yes, Keith, if I debate I want it to be fair. So sue me. If you're talking about my debate with Matt, well, Matt actually thought he won that debate. I even let him have the last word. But again, yes, I will only debate on fair grounds. I'm sorry, you dont like that. It may interest you but I challenged to debate your friend Brian Sapient in the following format:

Opening statements: no more than 1500 words.

First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.

Second Rebuttals: no more than 800 words.

Conclusions: no more than 600 words.

Also, no links allowed. And no excessively quoting a source. No plagiarism either. I'm willing to let an agreed-upon atheist (or Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) moderate the debate.

And I'm more than willing to compromise the number of words used.

That seems like a pretty fair format, no? But so far, I haven't heard anything from Sapient. Will he debate me? Usually, what Sapient and his friends do when they have a guest on their show they gang up on them. It would be 5 people against 1! That's not fair. I talk about it here: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-to-chicken-out-of-fair-debate.html

"6) Scour the internet for any examples of people holding the differing viewpoint who don't seem smart to you. Especially nice if you can find a young girl. Ridicule them and hold them up as an example of this viewpoint."

When did I do this? Please, give me an example. I do the opposite though. For instance, I've named plenty of atheists who hold differing views than me and commend them for their philosophical work. I'll give you names and examples of when I did this if you like. But to start you off, I have on occassions praised atheists like Jeff Lowder.

"7) When your immature behavior and innabillity to even draw much of an audience to begin with leads the subject of your hatred, er, sorry I mean the subject of your intense God inspired love to refuse to be bothered with you announce that he is afraid of you. The more he doesn't notice you or ignores you completely the more he is afraid of you, even as he debates scholars who you admire. Scholars who of course make a fool out of him, see #5."

When did I do this? Can you give me said example? Maybe you're thinking of the plagiarist, Rook Hawkins, who refused to debate JP Holding on fair grounds. I write about it here:

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/11/will-rook-hawkins-of-rational.html

Say what you want, but Rookie won't debate him fairly.

Thank you for your time, Keith. I just hope you would be better in assessing other people though. Because what you did was knock down a straw man. I have to say though, it is rather humorous to know that I'm getting on your nerves. I hope you don't lose more hair over me though.

Always,

Frank

========================

Uh, oops, Frank wrote that. Curses Frank! You suck!

[source]