Definitions:
I conclude with round 4 having to define, yet again, statistical norms wherein my opponent is confused, claiming, in his round 4 argument, “my opponent is giving the definition of ‘averages and ‘rate per million’ in which I've excepted it.”I defined “rate per million,” but I did not define “average,” or, as more correctly noted, “mean,” but I did not define that, either. What I said was, “None of [Pro’s] charges; not per million, not per 100,000 [he does not mention this, but I did], not per capita, nor any other per… are statistical averages [called “mean” in the biz].”
My opponent further exposed his misunderstanding of “rate per million,” and normalization, an equalization of such diverse population differences as exist between nations of the earth. I admit my teaching failure. Some people just refuse to learn.
God as reaper:
Pro first breached the subject of the God/religion argument, by declaring it in the title of his debate. Let’s put an end to a linkage that Pro has never managed to prove by any citation, regardless of the citation in his round 4 argument,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105914/coronavirus-death-rates-worldwide/ that there is a causal relationship between the Covid-19 pandemic and any action on God’s part.
Yes, the statistics clearly indicate that many European nations’ death rates exceed China’s, but, ignoring my argument of death rate per million, let’s really look at Pro’s original charge; that it is “God’s Counter Punch For White People’s Evil Nature.”
I can easily make the claim that planes crash because they hit the ground. But, is the ground the root cause of the crash, or is there another, prior cause, or causes, that only result in the plane hitting the ground? Root cause, and causal effect, is a consistent science that cannot be ignored by a cavalier attitude of,
“I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed”[round 2]. In a relationship of two possible correlative variables, in this case, that Covid-19 is killing people, and that God is reaping vengeance specifically on white people [even though virtually all races are dying], there is either a positive causal relation [favoring Pro’s position], or a negative causal relation [favoring Con’s position].
[1]
Pro has not offered any cited evidence that God is reaping souls by vengeance; there are just claims, because “[he] never speak[s] in an absolute manner, so no data is needed.” If that is acceptable to voters, I concede the debate.
However, I have cited evidence that God no longer reaps wholesale the souls of the wicked, as by His covenant with Noah,
[2] as well as by demonstration that more than just white people are dying by direct cause of Covid-19. Indeed, it appears Pro does not acknowledge absolutes, except that ‘never’ can be an absolute, except he first argued that it was not. A dizzying logic.
Absolutes:
I further discuss his statement, “I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed”[round 2] when I asked why he did not cite sources for his claims. I will let the citing data side of that slide, as it speaks for itself relative to Pro’s attitude about scholarship. But the precedent phase is telling in view of Pro’s chosen title for the debate; if it is anything but absolute, even stated as an interrogative, sue me. I will add Pro’s rebuttal in round 4, “I went on to show how the word (never) can be used as an absolute.” Yes, he did, completely reversing his stand in round 2. Since the precedent, conditional phrase of round 2 was so confidently reverses by round 4, the condition, now failed, means the conclusion, “so no data is needed,”also fails. So much for the added confidence in round 3, “Well, my opponent asked for sources, and I have definitely brought receipts.I contend that Pro has painted himself into a corner, without a paintbrush.
Hunting:
Following, Pro confidently said, “Con says that"hunting is engaged by all races" and I agree, but whites engage in (sport hunting) more so than any other race...Did anyone notice how he purposely left out the word (sport). Hmmm...Besides the fact that whites come from a gun culture…” which prompts the question, who first created the gun culture, by invention of both black powder, and then firearms to use it?
Hmmm… it was… a white European? Ding, ding, ding… dunnnn. Nope. It was the revolutionary nation [empire, rather], China, in the 9thcentury C.E.
“A Chinese Buddhist alchemist wrote the earliest known account of the substance, saying, “Some have heated together the saltpeter, sulfur, and carbon of charcoal with honey; smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house burnt down.”
[3] “Following the invention of black powder, the Chinese also developed the first firearms. Thanks in part to the Silk Road and adventurous traders like Marco Polo, by the 13th century ancestors of the modern firearm had spread from Asia to Europe, where they were further developed as weapons in the form of matchlock, wheel lock and flintlock firearms.”
[4]
My opponent claimed that I “purposely left out the word (sport).” I’ll repeat my round three commentary on the subject: “…there are members who do not all engage hunting as either a sport or for survival…” Perhaps a propensity for self-reversal begets the accusation toward others, as I really believe is the fallacy behind the entire proposed debate.
Society’s foundation: non-current conditions:
Pro argued that, “Sir, the past decisions/actions, which are non-current conditions, are the foundation for what society is today.” [round 4]
It is evident that, in some cases, indeed, past thoughts and actions are the source of current thoughts and actions. Witness the long enduring principles of European monarchies, which extend into the present day, as well as Chinese empiric dynasties which endured for a thousand years, and more, even if not into the present day. However, it is also true that the present-day American society split from the long enduring monarchy[s] of Europe to establish a new nation founded upon a constitutional principle of a three part, co-equal branched democratic republicThe fact that Pro did not bother to cite sources to support his claim, or any claim in this regard, such as “Do I even need to cite sources for something that (everyone) is aware of???”is just erroneous. “Everyone,” still another absolute in which Pro does not speak, “speaks volumes.”
Charles Darwin’s racism
However, a complete read of this article fails to exhibit a single charge of racism on the part of Darwin other than by the article author’s claim. While other commentary is cited, such as by James Watson, who, along with Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin, discovered the structure of DNA [I attended, as a student at UCLA a lecture given by Watson in the late sixties, and had the privilege of meeting the man], there is no citation in the entire article of a Darwin contemporary who, referring to Darwin, called him a racist. I suggest the author’s lack of cited sourcing is no better than Pro’s. Thank you, Pro, for the debate, and, thank you, readers and voters for your attentive review. I rest my case.
[2]Holy Bible, Genesis 9: 9: 9 - 11
covid 19 started in asia, how was it punishing whites?
That was the root of my argument, which also means that God, by choice, is not the total cause of anything
Thank you for voting
I once wrote a decent paper on the subject of that God being limited due to loving us in a manner similar to a parent (basically that technical power, does not mean absolute utilization of it).
"God is in control" is too open-ended. That He is omnipotent, I don't argue. But, I will argue that just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is compelled to use that power, all the time, every time, else he denies man free agency, as demonstrated by the command in Genesis 2 that Adam could eat of "every tree of the garden." That means from one, several, or every one, including the tree of kowledge. There was a condition set on that particular tree that was not a condition of any other, but Adam was still free to eat of it.
Thanks for voting
I think u missed the point. God is in control. Not government. He uses the evil to glorify his name as well as the good or obedient. In genesis he let joseph be sold to egypt to work good for the world and his family for example.
thanks for voting
As religiously inclined as I am, I find little benefit to proving government by the Bible, or vice versa.
1. You actually trust China's numbers? That's like holding out your hand to an angry dog.
2. The China vs. US and other Euro nations have such a vast difference in population [China 1.4B, and US/Euro, combined, 0.523B] that total death rates just as a hard number does not reflect the total impact of covid-19. You will note that the rating used is deaths per 1,000, or deaths per 100,000, etc. That way, the statistics are normalized taking in account that huge difference in relative populations. By that statistical normalization, China's deths per x exceed USA + Europe, combined. If you don't understand statistics, you're lost. I am a certified six sigma black belt. I am not lost.
I will make this as clear as i can through scripture, as scripture is the revealed will and actions of God. God always punishes a nation for its sins, not always the same punishments and not always within a determined amount of years. Genesis 15:14-16 shows predetermined time.
Leviticus 26:14-38 shows the progression of punishments God foreknew and predetermined. Sometimes killing the inhabitants and making the land desolate so the earth can have rest from sin. Revelations 11:18. And also in deuteronomy God gives blessings and cursings. Deuteronomy 28. But yes, its important to know 3 things. 1: God doesnt change. Malachi 3:6 2: God will repay. Romans 12:19. 3: you will reap. Galatians 6:7.
….At the end of the day, the US & other European nations still have higher death rates than China, which destroys any kind of refute.
Your post #25 alleged that "Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer."
Debate is a process of argument that establishes, first, the nature of the debate [X is the function of Y, for example] and two sides then argue in support of, or against the proposition. Pro/Con is derived from Latin, "Pro et Contra," meaning, literally, "For and Against. In other words, both sides are certain of their arguments. Debate is not the vehicle to move from doubt on a subject to full confidence of understanding. That's another process. It's called learning.
I don't know, which is why I started this thread.
In the mean time, The US's death rate has topped 10,000, Italy has 69,140...…..and China is (below) 4,000.
I always backup my claims with receipts.
So now I must ask... Do you think the covid-19 outbreak was started by a god? Also, if the answer to that is yes, was it to punish the Caucasian dudes?
These are my questions to you.
In the end, my opponent accepted...He based his entire argument on who has the highest death rate in which I proved him wrong.
If you or he can't except reality, then that's on you...Just remember, China has stabilized and the US/European countries' death rates are continuously rising & there's no (debate) about that.
So...showing current proof that Italy & other European countries have higher death rates than China....is considered wavering??
It doesn't get much Pro than that......Con destroyed his own argument by mentioning Rate Per Million. All he had to do was turn his tv on.
Yes I am correct that pro means taking a side of an argument. I am also correct that it does not mean "shorthand for protagonist", which means you were incorrect when you said that is what it meant.
Is it possible for you to admit that you were incorrect?
Hmmm...
But anyway, as for your question to me...
I have answered this question already, comrade.
A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If you wanted a discussion where positions are not taken then you do not want a debate.
If you do not want a debate then you should not start a debate.
If you start a debate there is a chance that someone will accept your debate.
That is the reason that you should start a debate only if you want a debate.
So if what you seek is a discussion without a debate... Listen carefully...
If you do not know what the meaning of the word forum is then I will tell you:
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
This is the definition given by Wikipedia.
On the top of your screen there is a word which you may click. This word is "forum".
I think I have given you enough hints for now...
Yes, U are correct about Pro/Con & different sides of an argument but U r missing the point. I came here basically to get an opinion/solution. Of course, (questions) will eventually lead to a quote-on-quote debate in which each side must argue Pro vs Con.
The very first sentence says "... is it fair to say that God's judgement is coming into fruition for the white race via COVID-19 & natural disasters?"
I never said that "the white race is emphatically the reason for COVID-19, so prove me wrong."...No, that wasn't the case or the intention.
The disconnect started because U thought I was blaming one race of people via their historical track record. How can I converse with someone if I don't (instigate)...which means to start/initiate...a question or make a statement? Nothing more, nothing less
Thanks to both of you for voting.
"I never speak in an absolute manner"
My question - Do you mean absolutely never or do you mean sometimes never?
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
Pro is not shorthand for protagonist. Nor is it shorthand for progenitor.
Notice that next to pro it says "instigator".
Instigator indicates that you instigated the debate.
Look at other debates you will notice that some have the instigator as con and the contender as pro.
This is possible due to the fact that pro and instigator are not synonyms.
Pro in this context means to be in favor of. For example "I am pro human rights".
Con in this context means to be against. It is short for "contra".
I wish to tell you something... A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If no position is taken then it isn't a debate.
Because that is what is required by a debate, taking a position.
That is why when you set up a debate the site has you take a position. Either pro or con. It is one of the drop-down menus.
You could have selected the con position. You chose the pro position instead. That was your choice.
If you did not know what pro and con meant then you could have looked it up after you saw the option to select either the pro or con position while creating the debate.
Your misunderstanding is therefore not the websites fault. It is yours.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-pros-and-cons-stand-for
Nope, that's a misconception...Why? Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer.
Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze
As the protagonist or progenitor, it means that I started, spearheaded & took the lead for this debate but it doesn't mean that I agree with the argument.
Are you even aware of the question marks that were used? What's the purpose of a question mark?