"A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that [...]" Really? Marvelous speculation on the man's thought processes. Maybe something to the tune of "but Dr. Banshen claims the real reason was [...]" would be better by several orders of magnitude?
On another note, aside from the quotes, this page reeks of bias. I wonder why. Barikada 15:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Is it just me, or was this page made solely to be a one-sided slam against atheist debaters? Nothing is said about the victories of atheist debaters. This needs to be corrected (or deleted, as this article serves almost no purpose, in my opinion). Luminite2 11:27, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
I would agree. "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" is hardly correct if you only present one side. Obviously biased, obviously unnecessary, obvious candidate for deletion. IStig 00:21, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Not sure what I was expecting. No wonder Conservapedia is considered a joke, and is unusable as a reference even in the slackest courses. This page alone demonstrates the willful ignorance of American Conservatives. A truly un-American attack on religious freedom. There is nothing to learn, here, except that conservatives deserve the reputation of bigot that reasonable patriots will continue to pin on them until it sticks for good. Joseph8th 12:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I asked you already to debate me about atheism & christianity
Your rules, so what do you say ?--ARamis 17:06, 25 September 2011 (EDT)