From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:21 PM
To: 'Craig Bonnes'
Subject: RE: Your Rebuttles
Well, yoy showed me a list of your rebuttles.  This is why I want you to debate in person with somebody.  That way we can quick answers and not this back and forth writing. 
(It's "rebuttal", not "rebuttle".) The whole point of my challenge is to replace "back and forth writing" with single comprehensive documents, so that readers don't have to trace through an entire thread to see how an argument is ultimately answered. Debating in person isn't even as good as a written debate, much less my proposed format. Have you even read the section of my challenge called "Justifying The Rules"?
By the way, here is a rebuttle to your  rebuttle: http://www.skepticalchristian.com/r_bholtz2.html 
Your reading seems to be about as good as your spelling. The very first sentence of my response at http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Kyle/2004-08-24.htm says that it is a rebuttal to the document that you're pointing to.
You are going nowhere with your arguments. 
Can you not come up with a single qualifying document from the entire history and genre of Christian apologetics that you would dare post alongside my arguments? If you can, I dare you to post it on the web with the appropriate link to my arguments. Go ahead. Make my day. I'm totally eager for readers to see my arguments right next to the best Christian apologetics you can find.  Are you equally eager? I thought not....
And as far as your "new arguments are concerned.  I will quote the websites' conclusion. 
Kyle's comments (which, again, are already thoroughly rebutted here) are about my questions for theists, not my arguments against Christianity. Kyle hasn't even tried to answer my comprehensive arguments document.