Daniel Scot’s opening statement was difficult to follow and seemed to lack a structured flow. His opening statement was something out of a preacher’s manual, quite literally the man was preaching Christianity rather than producing an opening statement related to the debate topic. He veered off topic and became embroiled in a lengthy dig at Islam.
The man focussed his attention on spiritual peace rather than the material peace which was the subject of the debate.
Scot, a very, very slow starter, eventually got round to the inevitable and got to the point of bringing Jesus as evidence that Christianity is a religion of peace. Sadly we had to wait for the last few moments of the opening statement to hear him bring a quote which won the debate for Pastor Daniel Scot and all right-minded individuals; whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword. Sadly, most of us would have dozed off by then.
Scot’s presentation style is certainly a cure for insomnia, he was simply reading his presentation from a screen. He lacked charisma, bereft of a shift in tone and was all too wanting of a shift in inflexion. He was simply monotone.
Nadir Ahmed’s opening statement began with admonishing Scot for veering off topic. Ahmed subsequently proceeded to address Scot’s points on Islam. He then left the moral high ground and descended in a butchered chaos that only Nadir Ahmed can bring.
Ahmed wastes no time getting stuck into Chrisitianity, clearly the man still had a bee in his bonnet from his previous debate with Shamoun. Ahmed seemed to be motivated by a personal agenda and emulsifies his presentation with a less than sincere sounding apology to the Christians if they find it “offensive”, he somehow tries to justify and pacify any potential hurt Christian feelings by spouting “ I hope you entertatin it (my presentation) because we entertained a lot of tough questions about Islam”; it seemed Ahmed was in the mood for revenge, did he get his revenge?
Well, he threw everything, including the kitchen sink at the Bible and this was a premeditated attack. Ahmed did not hold back, he opened and manipulated the Old Testament to the hilt. He had no regard for the venue (a church) or a predominantly Christian audience. Disresctful!
Ominously he declares “ I don’t want to misrepresent t#what the Bible teaches" but then proceed to butcher it with his bogus exegesis. He brings up various passages and misses the fact that they are descriptive passages rather than prescriptive passages.
The rest of the debate followed this pattern; Nadir, in his animated style pressed Scot with his straw man arguments and shock value whilst Scot incompetently attempted to answer.
Essentially the debate was a waste of time; nobody learnt anything new from the debate, it was a silly debate topic as everybody (except Nadir) knew Christianity was a religion of peace before and after the debate
It was obvious Scot was a Pastor thrust into the debate arena whilst it was clear Nadir Ahmed was far more experienced. Nadir Ahmed picked the wrong debate topic, he was presented with a lamb (Scot) but unfortunately for Ahmed, due to the debate topic, he was not presented with a knife.
If Nadir had debated him on the Trinity then we would all be discussing a resounding victory and seeing Nadir as a hero rather than being resuscitated due to the coma inducing nature of it all.
Scot was hopelessly inept and was only saved by the fact that it was obvious Christianity is a religion of peace.
Ahmed, clearly the more skilled debater was never going to convince us that Christianity is not a religion of peace.
No religion is inherently violent and all religions espouse peace including Christianity. A silly debate topic. I would link to the debate but I care for your sanity and time.