Conservapedia:Debating Kendoll

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-space article is of largely historical interest, and not necessarily the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies of late are spent debunking other, fresher examples of religious fundamentalism and creationist claims.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the cover story articles or a random article in main-space.
Conservlogo late april.png
Conservapedia
Introduction
Newcomer's Guide
What is going on?
Commentary
Best of Conservapedia
Blatant Plagiarism
Differences with Wikipedia
Hijacked Articles
"SDG"
"TZB"
"Fab Five"
Sysops
Timeline
CP in the News
In-depth analysis
Active users
Illustrated guide
Fun
Article Matrix
Greatest Insights
Parthian Shots

More about CP

Conservapedia sysop Conservative (AKA Ken) considers himself a skilled debater and a masterful opponent of atheism, evolution and homosexuality on the internet. He is, in reality, a self-deluding, self-aggrandising imbecile who hides from any serious challenge to his various "essays" (actually laughable collections of out-of-context quotes, torturously abused statistics and stolen pictures) by ignoring or blocking any critical opinions. He can barely string two clauses together, but he claims he is a paid writer. He derides atheists as poor debaters, yet refuses to even engage opponents in so much as light conversation.

But in January 2011 Ken made a mistake. He offered to debate, but attached conditions to his offer which he thought would never be fulfilled. He was wrong.

Contents

[edit] The offer

Debate me you pantywaists!

Ken first offered to debate with a member of RW if they first ponied up US$17,000 to a "Christian" charity of his choice. This was a reaction to Richard Dawkins receiving a similar honorarium for his part in a debate. He later upped this amount to $20,000 dollars for unexplained reasons.

It is clear he never thought that anyone would agree to these terms, and the offer was pure bluff. However, a bluff always carries a risk that someone will call it, and that's exactly what happened. Twice.

[edit] The challenge

On 29th of January 2011, user Jeeves of RW officially accepted Ken's offer to debate, the details to be negotiated once Ken agreed in principle to the debate taking place.

[edit] The Money

Kendoll's Money.png

The money required to be donated to charity now rests in its own separate account, reserved exclusively for the purpose of being donated to charity upon the successful completion of the debate. It will remain there until either the debate takes place, or it becomes abundantly clear the Ken will not be participating.

[edit] The Conditions

The following non-negotiable conditions were placed on the challenge:

  • The donation would be in pounds sterling to an amount agreed.
  • The recipient of the donation should be a registered and reputable charitable organisation that deals with a real, physical need. I must agree the organisation proposed. This is necessary to ensure that the "charity" to which the money is donated is not run exclusively for the benefit of Ken or one of his internet "friends."
  • The debate must take place in a place and time of my choosing, and with a speaker and title of my choosing. Ken's expenses will not be paid, but I can negotiate a venue convenient to him, or perhaps use the internet as appropriate.
  • Ken must appear in a recorded video agreeing the terms.
  • He must send me a letter notarised by a reputable notary public acknowledging the video produced as his true likeness, and confirming his full name and address. His address will not be released, but his name may be used in promotion of the debate.
  • The money for the donation will be (and has been) set aside before the debate, but the donation is contingent entirely on Ken's attendance of the debate. I will, if required, provide notarised evidence of the existence of the capital and sign a contract agreeing to the donation.
  • The debate will be not shorter than three hours, including a full hour of questions from the audience.
  • I must be able (with the explicit written permission of Andrew Schlafly) to promote Kendoll as the official spokesperson for Conservapedia in the debate. If required, I will limit the field of potential speakers for the affirmative to just RationalWiki editors so it can be promoted as CP vs. RW.

These were not unreasonable, considering the size of the honorarium offered is ridiculously out of proportion with the stature of Ken as a public speaker, and the likelihood that Ken will fail to turn up to even a long arranged and agreed debate. It is necessary that Ken ceases to hide behind his various "anonymous" aliases if he wants to have a career as a public defender of Conservatism or Christianity.

[edit] Correspondence

[edit] 2011-01-29 - The initial offer

(Sent via email)

Dear Kendoll,

I should like to accept your challenge to debate, though due to visa and venue restrictions I doubt I will end up being the speaker you end up debating against. I am willing to do all the organisation, including finding a venue, promotion of the event and ensuring it goes smoothly. All you would have to do is to arrive at the venue in a timely fashion and deliver your argument. I will also agree to the honorarium mentioned, to be donated to a charity of your choice, subject to my veto of unsuitable choices (those benefiting you, for example, or those not having a real charitable purpose.) A full list of conditions can be found at this web page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Debating_Kendoll

If you agree in principle, then we can begin to negotiate the fine details of the debate. Please reply via email with either your acceptance, or any problems you might have with this set up. Please note, all correspondence will be published on RationalWiki.

Sincerely,

  Chris.

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Ken cowers in to his intellectual bunnyhole

Dear Sir,

I was clear on the terms of the debate and that I would be steadfast on those terms. It would be a written debate. There is no "speaking" and no "arriving".

If I don't receive the name of the third party Bible believer RW has chosen to receive the money and that Bible believer is willing to do this, then I will assume they feigned willingness to debate me under my terms and backed out of the debate.

Please do not write me again, unless you are giving me the name of the third party Bible believer RW has chosen to receive the money and that Bible believer is willing to do this. All other emails will be ignored.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Suggesting Schlafly as an intermediate

Dear Kendoll,

Why would you be so resistant to a true debate? Aren't you always talking about how theists crush atheists in formal debates? This is not a feigned offer, it is a genuine offer to organise a debate. If all you were looking for is a conversation or argument, then you could have that simply by signing up a RW and engaging with us there.

As for a "Bible believer" RW has chosen to receive the money, if you insist on a third party being involved then I might suggest Andrew Schlafly. This will still be subject to a contract of course, the honorarium will only be paid upon your completion of the debate. I suggest you ask Andy to give you legal advice in the matter. I'm mystified as to why this should be necessary. I'm sure any reputable charity will happily provide a receipt for a donation on their own letterhead, and of course I would be under contract to deliver the donation.

Sincerely,

  Chris.

[edit] 2011-01-29 - International Man of Mystery

Dear Sir,

I agree with JP Holding that written debates are superior debates. Why should relevant information not be offered to the public merely because the person may lack a photographic memory? This is non-negotiable.

As far as you needing a contract, which I assume would requite my name and address, that is not going to happen and certainly was not listed in the terms I specified. I see no reason to allow atheists who have a proven track record of harassment via internet vandalism to harass me like they did with YouTuber Veritas48 and others. Atheism has a bad name and even Sam Harris has acknowledged this. Atheists have an established track record when it comes to harassment and violence.

I think you need to understand that due to the utter weakness of the atheist position and strength of the Christian position, and certainly not my debating abilities, RationalWikians have lost every single exchange we have ever had. Now they are pleading for me to give them one more chance at debate. They are like a losing gambler who feels his "luck" is going to change. There will be no debate unless they meet the simple terms I have gave them. Give me the name of the third party Bible believer RationalWiki has chosen to receive the money and whom agreed to receive the money so they will give it to a third party Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the ECFA. I am not going to allow this to become overly complicated.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Minor Edit

Dear Sir,

A revision to my last email:


I agree with JP Holding that written debates are superior debates. Why should relevant information not be offered to the public merely because the person may lack a photographic memory? This is non-negotiable.

As far as you needing a contract, which I assume would requite my name and address, that is not going to happen and certainly was not listed in the terms I specified. I see no reason to allow atheists who have a proven track record of harassment via internet vandalism to harass me like they did with YouTuber Veritas48 and others. Atheism has a bad name and even Sam Harris has acknowledged this. Atheists have an established track record when it comes to harassment and violence.

I think you need to understand that due to the utter weakness of the atheist position and strength of the Christian position, and certainly not my debating abilities, RationalWikians have lost every single exchange we have ever had. Now they are pleading for me to give them one more chance at debate. They are like a losing gambler who feels his "luck" is going to change. There will be no debate unless they meet the simple terms I have gave them. Give me the name of the third party Bible believer RationalWiki has chosen to receive the money and whom agreed to receive the money so they will give it to a third party Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability. I am not going to allow this to become overly complicated. There will be no additions or alterations to the debate conditions given.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Paranoia

Dear Sir,

I should provide further clarification.

The website RW is associated with internet vandalism/harassment and duly reported by the LA Times. They may or may not be the same atheists who harassed YouTuber Veritas48 and others.

By the way, I can provide ample evidence of atheists harassing believers and even suffering martyrdom at the hands of atheists. Can you give me a single atheist martyr who did not merely die for his political beliefs? I don't think you can. Certainly, I am not going to give my name and address to a group of people whose ideology is associated with a long history of harassment - especially since atheists harassment is still prevalent today.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - No need for photographic memories, we have photographic film

Dear Kendoll,

If your only objection to a formal debate before a live audience is that the public won't get a chance to relive it later, then this is trivially solved. The debate can, and will be, broadcast live and recorded for an internet audience as well as the live audience present at whatever venue we agree.

If you won't even reveal your name, I can't possibly see how you can be making a challenge for others to debate with you. You must either pick a position, either you are a brave defender of Christianity willing to debate with all comers, or you are a coward who hides behind internet anonymity at a website where you control all discourse. You can't be both. The Bible doesn't record tales of Anonymous the apostle who refused to go out and spread the word because the philosophers on Mars Hill might be nasty to him.

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from with the "pleading." You challenged us to a debate, subject to some conditions. I met your challenge, and now you're trying to demure. It is also a plain lie that you came out on top of every exchange you have ever had with us. Back in 2009, I remember one exchange you had with me where you challenged us to tell you one of your predictions that turned out to be false. I did so, then you lied to attempt to cover your tracks and I exposed that too. There have been numerous other occasions with other editors where you ended up tucking your tail between your legs and running away, just as you're trying to do now.

Look, this isn't complicated. You are being offered an honorarium out of all proportion to your stature as a debater. As with any such event, you will be required to sign a contract making the honorarium conditional upon your attendance. This is standard practice, and requires very little effort on your part in any respect. Just go through the formalities and turn up to the debate, that's all we're asking. Can you do that?

Sincerely,

  Chris.

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Brave Sir Robin Ran Away...

Dear Sir,

I gave my simple debate offer, now they can take it or leave it. There will be no negotiation. RWians are the ones who are pleading with me to debate after losing a string of debate exchanges due to the weakness of atheism. It is not my fault that atheism is such a weak ideology. Please tell Horace and company to get a life and not pester me if they aren't willing to meet my simple terms. Don't email with nonsense. If you don't give me the name of the person RationalWiki has chosen to receive the money and whom agreed to receive the money so they will give donate it to a Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability in the next email then I am going to merely abandon this email account.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Bravely ran away, away...

Dear Sir,

I did want to clarify things due to any possible memory issues that RW members may have due to atheist obesity related mental deterioration:

I gave my simple debate offer, now they can take it or leave it. There will be no negotiation. RWians are the ones who are pleading with me to debate after losing a string of debate exchanges due to the weakness of atheism. It is not my fault that atheism is such a weak ideology. Please tell Horace and company to get a life and not pester me if they aren't willing to meet my simple terms. Don't email with nonsense. If you don't give me the name of the trustworthy Bible believer RationalWiki has chosen to receive the money and whom agreed to receive the money so they will give donate it to a Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability in the next email then I am going to merely abandon this email account.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - We're already done with that one.

Dear Kendoll,

Now you are simply repeating objections we have already satisfied.

If you really think a third party is required in the transaction (and you still haven't explained why...), then I have already stated Andrew Schlafly would probably be mutually agreeable.

This issue is done with. You must either have some other objection, or you are simply reiterating to attempt to stall. Are we agreed in principle that a debate will take place?

Sincerely,

  Chris

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Uh oh! I'd have to reveal my insanity to others!

Dear Sir,

My apologies for taking your emails lightly and throwing out the atheist obesity related comment in terms of the mental aptitude of some obesity afflicted RationalWikians. I cannot say I am hopeful that RatioanalWikians will meet my simple debate conditions. And I am afraid that given their reputation they will have difficulty finding a Christian to debate them since many Christians love a challenge and would prefer to debate someone who holds a more credible ideology than atheism.

Has your third party Bible believing designate agreed to do the transaction of receiving our money and agreeing to donate said money to a third party Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability. I clearly said don't get back to me unless you found one who agreed to do it. I believe Mr. Schlafly would not be a good candidate as he isn't particularly interested in your affairs. He has suggested that I totally ignore the RW community in the past and I believe he is among the countless persons on the planet who does not ever read the RationalWiki website.

When you find a trustworthy, verifiable Bible believer who agrees to handle the transaction who you think I would be agreeable with, please get back to me. I suggest going to a Bible believing church this Sunday and asking the pastor if he would handle the transaction. If he does not agree, then keep going to Bible believing churches until you find an agreeable pastor.

It should not be difficult to find a trustworthy Bible believer given the amount of food pantries and hospitals created by Christians. I am sure you can find such a person and then I will simply tell you that you can tell the pastor to donate the $20,000 USD and then the 15 hour written debate can occur once the Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability receives the money and the funds have cleared.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - P.S., Have the same email again...

Dear Sir,

A typo crept my previous email and here is the revised version:


My apologies for taking your emails lightly and throwing out the atheist obesity related comment in terms of the mental aptitude of some obesity afflicted RationalWikians. I cannot say I am hopeful that RatioanalWikians will meet my simple debate conditions. And I am afraid that given their reputation they will have difficulty finding a Christian to debate them since many Christians love a challenge and would prefer to debate someone who holds a more credible ideology than atheism.

Has RationalWikians third party Bible believing designate agreed to do the transaction of receiving their money and agreeing to donate said money to a third party Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability. I clearly said don't get back to me unless you found somenone who agreed to do it. I believe Mr. Schlafly would not be a good candidate as he isn't particularly interested in RationalWiki affairs. He has suggested that I totally ignore the RW community in the past and I believe he is among the countless persons on the planet who does not ever read the RationalWiki website.

When you find a trustworthy, verifiable Bible believer who agrees to handle the transaction who you think I would be agreeable with, please get back to me. I suggest going to a Bible believing church this Sunday and asking the pastor if he would handle the transaction. If he does not agree, then keep going to Bible believing churches until you find an agreeable pastor.

It should not be difficult to find a trustworthy Bible believer given the amount of food pantries and hospitals created by Christians. I am sure you can find such a person and then I will simply tell you that you can tell the pastor to donate the $20,000 USD and then the 15 hour written debate (which can be broken up over a 86 month period) can occur once the Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability receives the money and the funds have cleared.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - ... and again...

Dear Sir,

My apologies, another typo crept in:


My apologies for taking your emails lightly and throwing out the atheist obesity related comment in terms of the mental aptitude of some obesity afflicted RationalWikians. I cannot say I am hopeful that RatioanalWikians will meet my simple debate conditions. And I am afraid that given their reputation they will have difficulty finding a Christian to debate them since many Christians love a challenge and would prefer to debate someone who holds a more credible ideology than atheism.

Has RationalWikians third party Bible believing designate agreed to do the transaction of receiving their money and agreeing to donate said money to a third party Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability. I clearly said don't get back to me unless you found somenone who agreed to do it. I believe Mr. Schlafly would not be a good candidate as he isn't particularly interested in RationalWiki affairs. He has suggested that I totally ignore the RW community in the past and I believe he is among the countless persons on the planet who does not ever read the RationalWiki website.

When you find a trustworthy, verifiable Bible believer who agrees to handle the transaction who you think I would be agreeable with, please get back to me. I suggest going to a Bible believing church this Sunday and asking the pastor if he would handle the transaction. If he does not agree, then keep going to Bible believing churches until you find an agreeable pastor.

It should not be difficult to find a trustworthy Bible believer given the amount of food pantries and hospitals created by Christians. I am sure you can find such a person and then I will simply tell you that you can tell the pastor to donate the $20,000 USD and then the 15 hour written debate (which can be broken up over a 6 month period) can occur once the Christian relief organization that has been endorsed by the Evangelical Council For Financial accountability receives the money and the funds have cleared.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - No, really...

Dear Kendoll,

I suggest in the spirit of, as you say, keeping things simple you put this question to rest. If Andrew Schlafly is appropriately "Bible believing" for you, then simply ask him on his talk page right now whether he's willing to act in this matter. If not, then we can consider other options. I don't see how asking random pastors (of which, in the UK, almost nobody goes by that job title) is going to result in someone more interested rather than less. Since you would be speaking for Conservapedia, I can't think of anyone more ideally placed.

Sincerely,

  Chris.

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Kendoll takes his ball and goes home

Dear Chris,

I can see RationalWikians do not want to meet my simple debate conditions. I clearly said at Conservapedia:

"If you are serious, and I don't believe you are, please arrange for a trustworthy conservative Bible believing Christian third party to receive the money and then they can confirm that they gave it to a reputable Christian relief organization endorsed by the financial watchdog organization the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability that I will pick".

I have no problem with RationalWikians failing to meet my simple request. I will not be checking this email address further though as I have more important matters to attend to.

Sincerely,

Conservative

[edit] 2011-01-29 - Fine, I'll ask him then.

Dear Kendoll,

I have been attempting to accomodate your, as far as I can see, bogus demands. I have nominated a person that you have no serious objection to, yet you refuse to ask him.

If you won't ask him, then perhaps you could unblock my account at Conservapedia and I will ask.

Sincerely,

  Chris.

[edit] Intermission

Cowards!

At this point, Ken removed the email address from his account at CP and went on a deleting spree removing all materials relating to his debate offer with the edit comment "it appears as if the people desiring my attention via email do not want to meet my debate conditions". You can judge for yourself if that's true.

[edit] Correspondence (cont.)

Tumbleweed.gif

[edit] A second challenger approaches

While the above was taking place Ace McWicked made many posts in WIGOCP:Talk confirming his agreement to the terms listed by Ken but found himself ignored by the master debater. Only after the deal with Jeeves fell through did Ken approach Ace. Unfortuntely by this time it was too late and Ken had already forfeited by way of refusing to contact Ace until after the offer was retracted.

[edit] Ace throws down the gauntlet (email Jan 29, 2011)

I will debate you.

I have 20K

My sister and her husband a conservative christians who'll recieve the money and give it to a charity of your choice.

What next?

Failure to respond will count as a forfeit

[edit] Ken's response

Tumbleweed.gif

[edit] Some hours later (about 24)

Against my better judgment, I decided to check out your email. I don't know you, your sister, or her husband from Adam. I suggest if you are serious and I know you are not, that you find someone who I can verify is a trustworthy, Bible believing Christian.

Your email was a total waste of time.

Sincerely,
Conservative

[edit] Followed by...

By the way, you misspelled the word "receive".

Sincerely,
Conservative

[edit] And then

Dear Ace,

I was rather abrupt with you. My apologies. The person representing your website by the name of Chris and the person who goes by moniker Horace were less than ideal to deal with. Thank you for keeping our email exchange quick and to the point and not filled with any unpleasantness.

Although I am skeptical that a debate will occur, it wasn't necessary to point out the misspelling in your previous communication. Since finding debate opponents on the internet is rather easy to do, I do find it difficult to believe that an atheist from your website, namely you, would donate $20,000 to a bona-fide and reputable Christian relief organization as a pre-condition to debate, but stranger things have happened. For example, someone going by the name of Johnny Skeptic paid someone $5,000 to write a paper that tried to refute JP Holdings The Impossible Faith. I found Holding essay the Impossible Faith was an excellent work and required a lot of background study to create.

As long as you are cordial, pleasant and to the point, I don't mind having an email exchange with you. I do plan on being extremely busy these next 90 days and probably for the next few years or so. Please forgive any untimeliness in any future correspondence.

Sincerely,
Conservative

[edit] Ace sez

Too late - you lost.

[edit] Thanks but...

Dear Ace,

Thank you for once again being brief in your communication. As I expressed earlier, I was rather skeptical that you wanted to debate.

Sincerely,
Conservative

[edit] Seriously, you lost

I did want to debate. But you forfeited.


You lost.

[edit] Ken once again takes his ball and goes home

Dear Ace,

I don't believe you. Please do not write me again.

Sincerely,
Conservative

[edit] Twisting the knife

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. You still lost.

[edit] Ken finally chickens out for good

Suddenly, on January 30th, posted a Red Telephone message in which he suddenly claimed to have a "full schedule for the next 90 days" and that he would only check his e-mails in 90 days on the "1 out of 1000,000,000,000,000 to the nth degree" that there is a valid offer. [1] He also claimed that the mysterious activity would keep him away from Conservapedia and he was worried that some people might miss his content creation at Conservapedia. This did not stop him, however, from almost blanking out Conservapedia's recent changes list, the very next day.[2] As of the 6th of February, he is still CP's most prolific editor by a long shot, with almost 700 edits since the start of the month.

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools