I didn’t realize there was a rule that says if you can’t come up with anything new, you forfeit.
Well, I guess there is such a rule - providing your opponent refutes your original argument.
But the above argument is a strawman. Of course God created all persons. But the purpose of saying “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” is to remind the listener that God created one man and one woman first, with the inference that this pairing is the only acceptable one. You don’t refute the argument by saying that God created all people.
I don’t find the original argument compelling, because it may be applied to all manner of advances: God created Adam and Eve naked, so the inference is we’re not supposed to wear clothes? God did not create cars, so we should walking? (Or riding horses, I guess, over whcih God DID give man domain.)
So there’s plenty of arguments to rebuttal to “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But I don’t believe a winning argument is, “I heard that one before, so it’s disqualified,” or “God created all people.”
No, but there is a rule that says, “If you can’t think of something new to say, shut the fuck up already.”
Or at least, there should be.
Seriously, dude. It’s a (year-old) rant about a very stupid, very tired, very offensive joke. No need to turn it into a lecture on valid debate techniques.
