Here is what "TR" wrote:
I think the debate was one-sided. Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate. Anyone who gets a chance to hear the debate will realize that Sam could not quote one single verse from the Quran or the Hadith which promotes genocide or terrorism. He instead resorted to quoting scholarly opinions, "possible intentions" of the prophet and showing that muslims could be unfriendly people(sam's interpretation). All of this had nothing to do with explicit evidence showing genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)
Good job Nadir, Must hear debate!
And here is my response:
A friend just emailed me to inform me that someone named "TR" had left a comment saying that Nadir won the debate, and that "TR" happens to sound exactly like Nadir Ahmed.
So I decided to do a little textual criticism, TR. Reading your short comment, a textual critic will note four peculiarities, which, taken together, can help identify a writer. The first two may be seen in your claim that "Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate."
First, most people (though not all) would write "four arguments" rather than "4 arguments," so we know that you typically write the number rather than the word. Interestingly, Nadir Ahmed often does the same thing. Consider these excerpts from his website: "Sam Shamoun refused to answer the 3 deadly questions of Christianity"; "The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace." Both you, TR, and Nadir write "4 arguments."
Yet this is not enough for a conviction. Consider the second line of evidence. You wrote "through out" as if it were two words instead of one. Most people know that "throughout" is a single word, but you don't. It's funny, then, that Nadir doesn't either. When we go to his website, we read the following comment about the debate: "Shamoun was repeatedly challenged through out the debate, but he ran away from this issue and falsely claimed it was off topic." Isn't it amazing that both you, TR, and Nadir misspell the same word in the same context?
But there's more. One also notes that you don't put a space between a word and a parenthesis that follows, e.g. "unfriendly people(sam's interpretation)" and "genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)." The vast majority of people would have spaces here. Not surprisingly, we find that Nadir, too, often leaves out the space between a word and a parenthesis. Here's a section from his site: "Christians believe that Jesus is God( Islam teaches that Jesus is NOT God, rather God’s Messenger). Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands to go commit genocide . . ." Another coincidence?
Fourth, you write "Quran" rather than "Qur'an" or "Koran," and so does Nadir: "One of the main points of disagreement between the Quran and the Bible are the issues of terrorism and genocide."
Nadir, while it is common for two people to share a particular writing peculiarity, it is quite improbable that two random people would share an entire collection of writing peculiarities. Writing, then, turns out to function like a fingerprint, Nadir. And you've just been caught red-handed.
The conclusion to draw from this evidence is that you, Nadir Ahmed, seeing that no one thinks positively of your performance in this debate, invented "TR" in order to praise yourself. This is absolutely pathetic, Nadir. Do you mean to tell me that you couldn't find a single person on the planet to write a positive comment about you? Are you so self-centered that you would lie in order to promote yourself? Wow! I have to ask, do you write love letters to yourself and show them to your friends to prove what a stud you are?
Like it or not, Sam absolutely crushed you in that debate. You can either take that like a man, or you can invent a hundred false internet characters to say that you won. Which is it going to be, Nadir?
If Nadir will resort to tactics such as this, how can we trust anything he says?