Sac’s Guide to Arranging Debates & Boosting Blog Clicks

A short excerpt from @Sacerdotus new book, “How to Threaten Your Critics and Get Away With It”

Sac’s Guide to Arranging Debates & Boosting Blog ClicksWhite flag Sac copy

  1. Select a far more intelligent, semi-famous atheist and create a debate proposal for her/him on your blog.
  2. DO NOT INFORM the atheist of the challenge. Instead post over and over on social media “the atheist is afraid to debate me” and remember to link to your blog where the atheist must accept or decline. This will manipulate people into visiting your blog. They will complain and say “That atheist doesn’t even know about your challenge, you immoral twat!” but remember: “More clicks equals more validation!”
  3. When the atheist finally catches wind of the debate through your dishonest, libelous posts, DO NOT acknowledge him directly on social media. Instead talk about the atheist in third person by directing him to the blog to respond. Everyone will laugh at your nonsensical, indirect instructions to the atheist, on a social network, but they will all visit your blog in a buzz of controversy. More clicks!
  4. Continue harassing the atheist with libelous claims of cowardice until he contacts you on your terms. Even if the famous atheist initially declines, still send everyone to your debate page to read how much of a manipulative ass you’ve been, just to get the atheist to acknowledge your offer.
  5. Don’t let it end there! Continue claims of the atheist’s cowardice, but also start new rumors saying that the atheist is a tax fraud, child abuser or other damaging claims, until he comes back to the debate table. BE SURE to blog about these and post them hourly, in order to get more site visits.
  6. When the atheist finally “breaks” and agrees to a live debate (on the condition that you stop all defamation of his good name), tentatively agree and post the hell out of the agreement and your blog, of course. Your site visits per minute should now be off the chart due to the famous atheist finally submitting to your harassment. Yes, feel free to brag, because “More clicks equals more validation”.
  7. When traffic starts to die down, add on some absurd debate requirements like “The debate can only happen on my hangout program and only at 2 in the morning.” The atheist probably won’t agree to the debate after that, but if he threatens to call your bluff, take no chances and continue to insert nonsensical requirements until he rejects your terms.
  8. Now endlessly post “See? The atheist is afraid to debate me!” accompanied by blogs and videos gloating about your victory. Be sure to warp this claim into “All atheists are afraid to debate me!” in blog form, to get as many angry clicks as possible on your site.
  9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 as needed to become more famously respected and to keep your blog clicks high, because “More clicks equals more validation!”

    *        *        *

Debating and confronting Sac is worthless, due to his endless manipulation and deception.  He would rather threaten you with police and legal action or start hurtful rumors about you, before admitting his lies. Indeed it is better to stay away and even block him out of your life.  This post was the result of multiple recent inquiries about Sac and his possible debate with a well-known and respected atheist.

Advertisements

Challenging Sacerdotus to a Debate

*See status updates below*

*** NOTE CHANGE BELOW per 11-29-14: To accommodate @SCDTVS’s claimed religious restrictions about being forbidden to use webcams.***

On 11/26/14, I am hereby challenging the twitter user @SCDTVS (Sacerdotus /Michael) to a debate. It will be held on his blog, under his standard listed rules. I will choose one of his supplied 3 preferred debate topics. This gives the distinct advantage to Sacerdotus.

However, to first “clear the air” each debater’s first 2 turns (before Michael’s debate rules officially take effect) will be set aside for any apologies regarding personal misbehaviors during our past online interactions, specifically between Michael and myself.

The only acceptable method for @SCDTVS to accept or reject this debate, is for him to post a video of himself speaking directly to the camera, with his face well lit and unobscurred, saying “I Michael, aka Sacerdotus, accept (or do not accept) the debate offer by Artie aka @freeatheism“. He must also show a valid government issue photo ID, clearly to the camera, to verify he is indeed Michael responding to the debate offer. Michael may cover up his address, last name and ID number, but the ID must otherwise be unobscured enough to verify it as a valid ID. Michael must then post (and leave posted) the video link on twitter, mentioning @freeatheism in the tweet.

***UPDATE (To accommodate @SCDTVS’s religious restrictions): Due to Mr Jeff T. Follon’s in-depth involvement, knowledge and communication with @SCDTVS, he may hereby video accept my debate offer as detailed above on Michael’s behalf. Jeff’s Government issue ID should be presented instead, but with his full name displayed as he lists. His acceptance declaration in the video should state “I Jeff T. Follon, aka @CatholicGadfly, accept on behalf of Sacerdotus (or do not accept) the debate offer by Artie aka @freeatheism.” This accommodation is MORE THAN FAIR as it will let @SCDTVS continue to avoid any & all video appearances, as his fearful excuses demonstrate.***

No other means of communication or media, beyond the above described process, will be considered a valid response to this offer, because only the above method addresses this particular debate offer. @SCDTVS has noted many times that he is willing to video debate live, but his schedule made it impossible. This video acceptance CLEARLY accomodates his schedule, so any video related excuse will be rejected. (***See above extra special accommodations for @scdtvs due to his ongoing excuses***) Further, any excuses given for not responding or for not responding appropriately will only be rejected and interpreted as indicated below.

Failing to accept or not accept the debate (and civilly clearing the air) precisely in the above manner will be interpretted as Michael personally indicating:
1. that he is scared to debate me on his preferred venue.
2. that he is running from a theistic debate where he would clearly hold the advantage.
3. that he is unwilling to be civil enough to even hear (or offer any) apologies regarding past behavior.

*Timeline & Disclaimer: At this time the offer stands until the end of 2014. Any method by which I choose to commuicate this offer to @SCDTVS is to be considered valid and any excuses or counter offers by @SCDTVS or involved parties will not be considered and will be referred back to the above 3 interpretations. I reserve the right to rescind this offer at any time for any reason. Since I made the offer, any reason I give for altering or rescinding the offer is the official reason and no other explanation need be made or may be concluded.

**If @catholicgadfly acknowledges the offer exists, it will be hence forth known that @SCDTVS knows of the debate due to clear evidence that he & @SCDTVS are the same person:https://freeatheism.org/sacs-oops/

Updates:
DEC 1ST: I figured BY NOW Sac would have made an acceptance video, but no, his mouthpiece acct Gadfly has just made more excuses. I cant offer any more advantages for him than above. 1 conclusion; SAC IS SCARED.

Nov 29 2014: @CatholicGadfly may now video accept on behalf of Sacerdotus, but we all know there will be new excuses to accommodate Michael’s fear of debate. I also offered to debate Gadfly > https://freeatheism.org/2014/11/29/challenging-catholicgadfly-to-a-debate/

Nov 28 2014: Another day where Sac’s sock puppet accts are busy with defaming and libeling respected folks. No response to my more than generous debate offer. He is clearly scared.

Nov 27 2014: Gadfly has acknowledged the offer and immediately started making excuses for Sac(k) despite him being the same person. Something about future priests (non priests) can’t use web cams. That excuse is as pathetic as it gets. He is simply and plainly scared to debate.

Nov 26 2014: Both @SCDTVS & @Catholicgadfly have been well informed for 24hrs on twitter via @ mentions and retweets linking back to my generous debate offer. Not even a single mention of the offer from either of Sac’s accounts. I’ve no doubt he is aftaid to debate.

Claim: “There are no Atheists in foxholes.”

Return to RTC HOME   //   Key: *V* = Any part may be used Verbatim   //  How to Submit and Use and Content
Refutation Links and Multimedia:  https://freeatheism.org/atheists-in-foxholes/
.
Debater Responses:    (no particular order)

Common Sense, Using Ridicule and/or Requiring Proof:

Return to RTC HOME

Claim: “Atheists are fools, with hardened hearts, so your logic can’t be right.”

Return to RTC HOME   //   Key: *V* = Any part may be used Verbatim   //  How to Submit and Use and Content
Refutation Links and Multimedia:
.
Debater Responses:

  1. *V*-“
Common Sense, Using Ridicule and/or Requiring Proof:

Return to RTC HOME

Claim: “Atheists believe single cells transformed into humans. Talk about having faith.”

Return to RTC HOME   //   Key: *V* = Any part may be used Verbatim   //  How to Submit and Use and Content
Refutation Links and Multimedia:
.
Debater Responses:    (no particular order)

  1. *V*-“@allallt: Single cells transforming into humans happens all the time. We call that ‘embryology’. In an open system, entropy can, in fact, decrease. That is what we see in the pregnancy of every animal that gets pregnant (including egg-laying animals).
    In terms of evolution, conversely, that is not what proponents of evolution believe. The modern cell is too complicated to be where evolution started. Evolution is much more likely to have started with lipids and other organic material forming vesicles.
Common Sense, Using Ridicule and/or Requiring Proof:

Return to RTC HOME

Claim: “Atheism is not a justified position, since atheist claims are unproven.”

Return to RTC HOME   //   Key: *V* = Any part may be used Verbatim   //  How to Submit and Use and Content
Refutation Links and Multimedia:
.
Debater Responses:  (no particular order)

  1. *V*-“@Allallt:  There are no atheist claims.”
  2. *V*-“@freeAtheism:  A position of non-belief is the ONLY justified position, in the face of 100% unverifiable claims of divinity.  Put up some actual evidence, have it withstand scrutiny and you can claim the justified position.”
Common Sense, Using Ridicule and/or Requiring Proof:

Return to RTC HOME

Claim: “Atheists ignore obvious evidence for creation. Its all around us.”

Return to RTC HOME   //   Key: *V* = Any part may be used Verbatim   //  How to Submit and Use and Content
Refutation Links and Multimedia:
.
Debater Responses:    (no particular order)

  1. *V*-“Allallt:  Everything around us has natural explanations.”
  2. *V*-“@freeatheism:  Interpreting the universe around you as having been intentionally made has no basis in reality unless you’re comparing to an example of a universe that has been verified as created by a god.  Until then you are merely guessing that this universe looks like a created one,”
Common Sense, Using Ridicule and/or Requiring Proof:

Return to RTC HOME