Review of the debate: a personal view
Posted: November 11, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams 8 Comments »Yesterdays debate (Sami verses Michael Dantzie, see article below) was part debate – part shambles. The moderator, ahem, did not moderate effectively, if at all; the Christian refused to answer questions put to him during the Q & A, and the whole thing descended into chaos. Definitely the funniest and worse debate I’ve ever attended.
But on the plus side:
Abdullah saved the day. He not only successfully persuaded the Christian to come along (when he got cold feet and wanted pulled out), he stepped in to moderate the proceedings when all order had collapsed, and ensured some decency to the event.
To say that Sami out-classed his opponent would be a massive understatement. All Michael could do was preach to the audience for 25 minutes and later he got increasingly annoyed with the audience when we had the temerity to question him on the coherence of his views.
Sami just sat there calmly watching the chaos unfold before him, occasionally refuting questions from the audience.
so:
Christian side 0/10
Muslim side 10/10
Decency and good order 0/10
Michael presented the truth and it was amazing! just realized that muslims have nothing to PRESENT, all they can do is argue and try to refute to opposition but they have NO message! except for don’t worship Jesus?? what kind of a message is that? the true God has message and it was seen that night. Praise the LORD JESUS
So why did Michael refuse to answer the audiences questions? What was he afraid of? Muslims do have a message, if you were there you would have heard Sami speaking very eloquently about the islamic view of Jesus.
Watch the video when it comes out soon, inshallah
will the answer change anything in u? it is not the argument that will convince you but God only! by doin that he showed that it was not about him. because if it was up to us we could argue for eternity because you dont wanna listen to the truth and i believe u are in error so i wont listen to you either but i have a HELP! because it is not us who does the conviction but GOD.
I would still like to know why Michael refused to answer the audiences’ questions. What was he afraid of?
I’m a sincere seeker after the truth and Michael short changed the audience. He agreed to participate in the Q&A but didn’t live up to his commitments on the day. He should honour his promises dont you think?
he was not afraid of anything, else he would not have accepted the invitation. in His last “debate” the Q & A session went into a debate and it was disgraceful and even though the topic was “Is Jesus God?” almost 80% of the questions were about the corruption of the Bible and you might be sincere, i do not question that, most of the people went there to argue.
were you at the debate at the University of Sussex? I think you are being very judgemental about the people there. I didn’t get the impression that ‘most people’ were insincere at all. The problems that evening were:
The lack of a moderator doing his job led to individuals in the audience having mini-debates with the speakers (which is not right)
The Christian speaker failing to enter into the spirit of the occasion by responding to legitimate questions from the audience.
For example, I was the first person to ask a question: I read to him from Deuteronomy 30 which I argued undermined his whole argument. He didn’t respond to my question (but later on he did refer to my point and he admitted that I had “refuted” him).
Asalamu Alaykum. Do you know when the debate will be uploaded?
its uploaded