Is COVID-19 & Natural Disasters God's Counter Punch For White People's Evil Nature?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth, is it fair to say that God's judgement is coming into fruition for the white race via COVID-19 & natural disasters?...Whites have killed the most people, commits the most crime, have destroyed the eco systems and have put animals on the endangered species list. Even though other races have suffered from this virus etc, whites appear to be the main target.
The argument is "can white people reduce their evil acts to save themselves & the world?" Can Europeans erase their savage history/behavior of committing crimes against humanity? ONLY BRING FACTS TO THE DEBATE & LEAVE YOUR EMOTIONS AT THE DOOR.
My main problem with Pro here is his inability to meet his BoP.
To put it simply Pro never seemed to argue that God was the cause of the corona virus. He would have to do this if he wanted to win the debate, but seeing that he failed to do so, his BoP is not fulfilled. As a result, Con must win arguments.
ARGS to CON:
Even generically the popular argument "disaster X is punishment on people Y" should always fail. Even before the blanks are filled in, God is made racist, punishing sins by phenotype rather than individual deeds. Even before the blanks are filled, the haters are stuffing profane words in the mouth of what should be sacred. PRO offers no assertions or evidence, just racist insinuation and invective.
CON is to be applauded for responding contemplatively to angry screed.
*whites are less impacted than other phenotypes
*children are impacted in spite of blamelessness
*the Earth is not destroyed
*Yahweh has promised not to destroy the Earth
PRO begins R2 with "this debate isn't really about racism" and then irrelevantly bitches about white people for the rest of the round. PRO is so obsessed with talking about his fear of white people that he forgets his thesis
P1: God is punishing whites
C1: Then how come asians have it worse?
P2: CON is denial about the evil of white people, let's make a list of grievances.
CON correctly calls PRO's non-sequiturs, racism, unreason, and hypocrisy. Aren't we supposed to proving that PRO has special insight into God's intent? PRO never got started on proving God is punching people, PRO's only interest seemed off-topi e proving that white people merit the punch
SOURCES to CON:
As PRO explains: " I never speak in an absolute manner, so no data is needed"
VOCABULARY to CON
The European race has singlehandedly destroyed the earth and its people, which can't be debunked
Either PRO doesn't know what "destroy" means or PRO doesn't know what "debunk" means
CONDUCT to CON:
DART CODE of CONDUCT reads:
3. Hate Speech
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
Even when not directed at fellow DARTers, hate speech is considered poor conduct.
Pro failed to substantiate their proposition.
Other than a few brief, somewhat racially biased allegations which were never properly addressed the debate thenceforth descended into a statistical contention/argument.
Throughout, Pro was overwhelmed by Con's Skill in all aspects of debate presentation.
The underlying motivation of Pro's argument was also self-defeating in terms of conduct.
To show that covid-19 is a punishment from a divine being the following must be demonstrated at a bare minimum:
- Covid-19 was created by a divine being.
- If [insert action supposedly being punished] had hypothetically not happened then covid-19 would not exist.
Pro failed to even address either of these points wheras con was able to build a case that if covid-19 was actually being used as a punishment then only those supposedly being punished would be affected.
Pro in their usual trollish way, never attempts to meet minimal BoP. The outcome was a foregone conclusion once "China" was mentioned, and can be summarized with a single statement from pro: "the world numbers of deaths recorded due to Covid-19 as of the above date, there have been 1.59 deaths per million among nations of predominately European descent, whereas, nations of predominately Asian descent have counted 3.75 deaths per million through the same date."
And yes, once you have God reaching his noodly appendage down to smite the non-whites to somehow punish the whites (for being so sympathetic?), it's nearly impossible to come back and prove that whites the only group not passed over by this virus.
Sources:
Statistics don't lie. Claiming the total number afterwards will be more dead whites, still doesn't exclude the non-whites God is apparently punishing by accident while drunk or whatever. Extra credit for using the Bible in this biblical debate (that should be a given from both sides, but somehow it wasn't on this one).
S&G:
ALL BOLD HURTS LEGIBILITY.
Comparatively, con was clear and even used headings.
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?
I just... Do you know what the words pro and con mean?
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
Lol. I bet whenever you watch the news, you'll say to yourself..."Da** it, mairj23 was right."...…"He's always freaking right!"
I'll ask again...where is this phantom "Yes" is located?
Thanks for voting.
Nor did you break any records citing sources that confirm your "proof."
Uhhh... The upper left part of your screen. The part where it says you took the pro position on the topic. Green rectangle with your username on it.
smh
Guide me and others to where this phantom "Yes" is located.
I'll wait...………………………….
You can bomb the votes all you want, which means nothing to me because I've proved my point without ever breaking a sweat.
Do you know what [sic] means? See to your own grammar and syntax, my friend.
"Classic."
Indeed. Please be around for voting.
Question asked by debate title: Is covid-19 a punishment for the whities?
Answer given by marij: Yes.
Later statement by marij: I never said God is specifically punishing the whities.
Classic.
Yes, every race of people has committed atrocities but white people have a documented history of committing the most atrocities. How do you think that the smallest ethnic group of people were able to take control of the most global regions?
You said that whites have raised the standard of living. This tells me that you don't have a clue of white people's living standards throughout history. If you did know, then I can guarantee that you wouldn't have made that ridiculous statement.
Follow me for one second...The title of the debate is a question. I asked the question because I've noticed that white people are suffering with COVID-19 more so than other races of people.
I'm basically asking a question, but I'm definitely not making fun of the situation by asking the question if that makes sense.
And then there's this:
"Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth"
I disagree. There are PLENTY of people who would consider Muslims to be the most evil. And furthermore, you can't generalize atrocities committed to call an entire race evil. You can say, oh look, white people killed natives all over the world, and did all of these generally bad things, but if you looked at what Africans did to each other, there are plenty of atrocities committed there. Another example would be the Japanese, who were grossly inhumane towards POWs in WWII, far and beyond more so than the Nazis.
If you look at some of the best things done by humanity, they're also often white. White people were the first to abolish slavery. White people raised standards of living all over the world. I'm not saying that you should take European/American history without a grain (or a lot) of salt, but you have to take the same stance with other groups. The fact that there's more bad stuff about Americans and Europeans in history books is mainly because a. our atrocities were better documented, and b. Europeans and Americans are discussed in way more depth in every way than any other groups.
"Is COVID-19 & Natural Disasters God's Counter Punch For White People's Evil Nature?"
You wouldn't use the word "white" unless you were specifically referencing whites. If you were saying that Covid was a punishment against evil in general, then you wouldn't have used that word. Therefore, you were specifically referencing whites, and claiming (by conjunction of the debate title and your position, Pro) that Covid, etc., are punishments against whites.
Nope, I've never said that God was specifically punishing whites & I never said that God didn't infect non-whites.
I can't answer the questions because I never made those statements.
The question that was asked:
Why would God infect any non-whites if he was specifically punishing whites?
The question that was answered:
Why would you say God didn't infect non-whites?
Note that these are not the same question, yet mairj will pretend to have answered Michael's question (despite blatantly ignoring it).
Trolls gonna troll.
Your comment became instantly invalid by not separating three letter word with a hyphen. (three-letter word)
Oops
Did I ever say that non-whites weren't affected?
Why would God infect any non-whites if he was specifically punishing whites?
This debate was decided when pro misspelled a three letter word when quoting a common proverb.