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].
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,
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.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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.
Holy Bible, Genesis 9: 9: 9 - 11