Over at Beggars All, he says of Jason Engwer:
He writes of me:
I engaged apologist Jason Engwer in a huge, CARM-sponsored debate on SS and the fathers, but alas, he decided to leave the debate less than halfway through:
I've been in many debates about the fathers' views. My experience has been -- almost universally --, that the Protestant (even the many who weren't anti-Catholics, that I have debated) offers no further argumentation, once the Catholic side is presented. That's a shame, because for me, the best part of every debate or dialogue is in the second round, where things get very interesting. It's so rare to find anyone who is even willing to get that far into a discussion. 'Tis a pity. But if one has a weak case, this is altogether to be expected.
The ones who turned down the chat debate made it very clear at the time, why they did so. For example, Gene Bridges, writing on TAO's blog on 10-25-07:
". . . you are a chronic liar . . . I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time. I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, . . . And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either."
There you go! I am a wicked, wascally scoundrel,and so ole Gene has no time to debate me!
Jason can speak for himself...
With respect to me...By way of reply:
Thank you, Dave for proving my words about you being a chronic liar are 100 percent true.
Here's what Uncle Dave didn't include, namely the full quote:
Dave, I don't keep up with your blog or comments that you hide in the comments of other blogs. I come by you when I stumble across you.
I have not received a proper request from you for a debate, so don't go running about telling people I have "refused" to debate you about anything. Notice that this is, what, all of one or two days, and already, according to you I've "refused."
In fact, let's put this in context, the only reason I am aware of your request now is that I saw it here.
It's announcement was not in an email to me (that would be too easy and logical, since my mail is public) but in a link to your blog that you posted one or two days ago, near the end of a comment thread on a prayer request for rain! Since it is presently raining here, I wasn't aware I needed to check it for debate challenges on Catholicism. Sorry,but that tactic earns you an automatic "No," since you lacked the integrity to simply email. You had your chance, and you blew it.
This reply is also here, and not on my blog to make that point. I've placed it where I found the challenge, and it's not in my email box.
Further, you are a chronic liar who says that we want monologues with you. As I recall, you are not banned from posting commentary in any article I have written on Catholicism on Tblog, and, since I've written on you recently, as I look around, I've seen my name show up once on your blog. Again, you had your chance then,and you blew it.
Oh - and since the infallibility of the Pope had not yet been made a de fide object of faith in Rome until the 19th century, what Steve and I have said stands, and, as usual, what you say doesn't begin to touch what we have stated. It suffers from anachronistic reading of texts.
If you would write something less than the long, incoherent, and rambling posts you write - posts that an English professor would grade "C" at best, I might be willing to do a blog debate. I prefer to respond to other articles or, in your case, to you shoddy, incompetent,and anachronistic exegetical work.
I don't use a chat function on my computer-not even for AOL - all chatrooms are blocked-, and I'm not a member of Paltalk, and don't intend to be. I don't even use a soundcard. I also have a real life in the real world, and that includes working as a freelance writer who will be chronically several conferences beginning in November. I also live with terminal illness. I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time.
I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, and then you have all the courage to issue a debate challenge to me near the end of a comment stream on praying for rain. I learned about it here, and then I had to Google that by first Googling for a debate challenge from you to me, going to your blog, which I don't read already, and then finding the thread on my blog, not in a thread on the topic of Catholicism, but on a prayer request for rain. Why should I honor that, Dave?
And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either. You've also taken an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics", and yet here you are wanting us to interact with you. I, for one, take the Law on making vows seriously, and I am not going to contribute to you sin before God in violating your word.
But here is something you can do Dave. You can renounce Rome and all her merits. You can cast yourself on Christ and Christ alone, and you can trust in Him and Him onlyfor your eternal salvation.
I'll remind, you, Dave:
you are the very definition of the factious man about whom Paul warned Titus, as well as a chronic liar. Indeed, let's not forget, Dave, the way you "challenged" me to a "debate," and let's not forget that you were the one dictating the terms of the debate.
Let's put it this way...you really are a second rate adversary. Debating you is about feeding your own overbloated ego. You sir, need to repent and turn to Christ, not engage in debates. That's one reason people refuse to debate you. It's not worth our time. TF is being extremely generous. If you really wanted a debate, you'd take him up on his terms. Debate his way on his terms...but, as always, it's all about Dave. It always has been and it always will.
Further, on the one hand, you constantly oscillate between not engaging anti-Catholics and then calling people whom you label anti-Catholic, such as yours truly and Jason, to debate. These two propositions pull in logically opposing directions. Pick a position and stick with it, Dave. It's just that simple. But the fact that you can't be bothered to keep you own word, much less tell the truth signals to us that you are dishonest opponent. Why should anybody on your side of the aisle or ours debate dishonest opponents?
You're a troll, Dave. Normally, I don't feed them. Now go back under your bridge. Away with you. Go pester somebody else.
And before you get the completely illogical idea that I am either up for debate now or are somehow "afraid" to debate you. No, Dave, not at all, on either count. Why? Well, I've had some very serious family issues going on for the past few months, some of which has cleared up, some of which has not. That is a large part of the reason I don't post on Tblog very much at all. I've not had much to say, and I've not had the time to say much. Simply put, my real world responsibilities are taking my priority right now. It's that simple.