Instigator / Con
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#4410

Dual topic: Are there really any such things as guarantees? Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1524
rating
51
debates
75.49%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I hear this expression "There are not many guarantees in life but one thing for sure, you will die".

Upon thinking about this, we're only going by deductive reasoning to make the conclusive statement.

No such thing as satisfaction guaranteed either. Otherwise, why have an option or scenario of offering the money back for a purchase? Huh? Huh?

Look out, anybody looking to think outside the box or stay inside it, come-on.

Questions on the topics, drop a message.

Round 1
Con
#1
Let us start with a refresher on what a guarantee is. I feel as though the meaning of it has gotten lost in the comments.

Here it is in the way I mean it. A guarantee is not a fact but a declaration upstaged, purported, touted, strongly convicted to happen and will . But indeed no evidence to happen and that is my objection. 

It can be something however that is based on deductive reasoning which I will expound what I mean on that.

A deductive conclusion in general supported by specific cases that have occurred .

For example, every product made by a company has sold so therefore it is guaranteed that the next one made will be sold.

It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?

You are guaranteed to die. You will die. This is deductive based on a history of us expiring.

But science fiction is becoming more and more fact. Breakthroughs in medical science and technology just evolving .

I understand mechanical and robotic adaptions exist for those that are frail. Things such as these are on the raise in favor of humanity survival.

Remember "guarantee" is not another word for fact. It's a declaration touted as something that WILL come to pass. 

You can't have that "will" part in there without evidence attached to it.

Many of these things that are so called guaranteed are deductive calculated positions like forecasting.

Meteorologists do this with weather trackers. These things aren't bound to happen so therefore the weather person isn't always accurate in their forecast.

One more thing before I close out here is something besides science that can change the outcome of death.

Let's look at the possibility of divine plans.

We read in the book of 1 Corinthians 15:51
"For sure, I am telling you a secret. We will not all die, but we will all be changed. "

So there it is. I understand we have colloquially statements about many things and can overextend the branch of confidence .

Let us not get ahead of ourselves. Let's stay following by the reality that actually is as we know it.

Pro
#2
Thanks Mall for accepting the challenge, 
I've been waiting to find a topic to debate you on. 

My position: There are such things as guarantees and it is a fact that you're guaranteed to die.

Burden of Proof: 
It may seem that the majority of the BoP is on pro, however it is considered shared.

Pro must validate that there is such thing as guarantees and it is a fact that you're guaranteed to die.
Con must validate that there is no such things as guarantees and its not a fact that you're guaranteed to die. 

I'm not sure this really matters to Mall, as said in the disclaimer, so, I think this would be shared either way. 

Contentions

I. Guarantees

In General
Guarantees are literally everywhere. Let me state some that are undeniable:
  • I guarantee you need to drink water for your physical body to live
  • I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't 
  • I guarantee you were once in your mother stomach 
  • I guarantee that there is at least one dog and cat alive
It can be some of the most random things. 

Further, you refer to guarantee as not a fact, but it is.

Let me use an example: 
"It is a fact that there are 50 states in the United States" 
"It is a guarantee that there are 50 states in the United States" 

Another example: 
"Its a fact that one liter of water weighs one kilogram on Earth." 
"Its a guarantee that one liter of water weighs one kilogram on Earth.

Guaranteed to die
You refer to it as "no evidence to happen", are you sure about that? Look at how many people have died and look at how many people have never died. What's the difference? Billions of people have died and nobody has ever not died. Until someone can live without death, then it is guaranteed you will die. 

Also, I will state in my refutations and little bit below that it is shown that organisms don't live forever and when they have a little span life you also, will die.

Refutations: 
A guarantee is not a fact but a declaration upstaged, purported, touted, strongly convicted to happen and will . But indeed no evidence to happen and that is my objection. 
Ah, I see. What really is a fact then? 

A fact is something that usually refers to as being known to be true or even proved. 

Is it true that we need water to survive? Is that a fact? Is that a guarantee? 

It's a guarantee you need water to survive. 

I do however get your point, but it is guaranteed. It is shown with heavy amounts of research that if you don't die from avoidable actions (smoking, drinking, etc) you make in your life, you will die because your organs will die. 

It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?
This is actually something that's not a real guarantee but something that is mentioned in many adds. 
This is promotion which usually tends to be something to gather attention, but isn't a real guarantee. 

But just because this one is for advertisement, doesn't mean there aren't guarantees in general. 

You are guaranteed to die. You will die. This is deductive based on a history of us expiring.
The real question is, can you prove it isn't a guarantee? Unless you have evidence of (even just one) person who has never died, than it continues to be a guarantee.
It hasn't been proved wrong. 

If you don't die of things such as drinking, smoking, etc, then your vital organs die, therefore you die. Also, with my first rebuttal I state: "It is shown with heavy amounts of research that if you don't die from avoidable actions (smoking, drinking, etc) you make in your life, you will die because your organs with die."

You're a human right? You would no longer be considered human. Are you 'God'? 

Remember "guarantee" is not another word for fact. It's a declaration touted as something that WILL come to pass. 

You can't have that "will" part in there without evidence attached to it.
I have said my evidence in my contention. 

Meteorologists do this with weather trackers. These things aren't bound to happen so therefore the weather person isn't always accurate in their forecast.
I don't think it's ever a guarantee or considered a guarantee. Usually with weather trackers you'll hear "today's weather prediction .."
Everything Meteorologists do are predictions.

One more thing before I close out here is something besides science that can change the outcome of death.

Let's look at the possibility of divine plans.

We read in the book of 1 Corinthians 15:51
"For sure, I am telling you a secret. We will not all die, but we will all be changed. "
I just knew you were going to bring up the Bible. I have to admit, I don't know much about the Bible. So, I might not be able to go into the word of 'God' as much as you want, but i'll try. 

With the little I have read, as far as I know  'God' does say we are going to die. 

The Bible states the following: 
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2)

You will die. This body right now is just temporary, it will die. However, 'we' will be resurrected with a spiritual body.

Hopefully when talking about this i'll get more knowledge on the 'lord', but what are your thoughts?

Round 2
Con
#3
I have to point this out first because I can see now it's going to be an uphill battle.

The word "guarantee" is not another word for "fact".

Once more, the word "guarantee" is not another word for "fact".

By the examples you gave, it's shows you're using these terms interchangeably which is faulty.

"I guarantee you need to drink water for your physical body to live"

I don't need your guarantee or assurance because I have the evidence that I require water for hydration and several bodily organic functions.

The next example of yours is interesting.

"I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't "

Due to you not knowing my personal beliefs, you have no evidence either way. You can't make the statement as a matter of fact or a guarantee.

It's like saying "I guarantee you need this product or my services". You don't even know if I need anything from the store you're selling out of . Slow your roll.

"I guarantee you were once in your mother stomach"

This is another fact. Guarantees deal with first of all, something before it happens. After it has happened, it serves no essence. But in the real world, in real world events, it's a non sequitur of a concept.

"I guarantee that there is at least one dog and cat alive"

This is just a flat assumption. You can assume that sure.

"Further, you refer to guarantee as not a fact, but it is.

Let me use an example: 
"It is a fact that there are 50 states in the United States" 
"It is a guarantee that there are 50 states in the United States" 

You are choosing to use the term as meaning fact. But according to this topic, according to my position I'm using it not as that.

So you have to argue my position. You can't refute something that isn't my stance unless you have ulterior dishonest motives to move the goalpost, strawman and misrepresent me.

"Another example: 
"Its a fact that one liter of water weighs one kilogram on Earth." 
"Its a guarantee that one liter of water weighs one kilogram on Earth."

Like I said, you're using the terms interchangeably so go back to the first round, review what my position is.

I specifically communicated these two terms will not be synonymous or the same.

"You refer to it as "no evidence to happen", are you sure about that?"

Let's see how sure I am by the response to your next statement.

"Look at how many people have died and look at how many people have never died. "

Things that have happened to other people and what has happened in the past isn't evidence for  what happens to me. This is deductive reasoning which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

The difference is going by what has happened making a generalization that is concluded to happen.

What has happened in the past week of no one winning a lottery ticket is not evidence I will not win. It's deductively concluded that I won't like the others who've played, but not fact.

How many people have never died? Well if you believe in divine intervention, this discredits a fact that I will die nor guarantee which is a non sequitur anyway. If it was just fact, I still wouldn't need a guarantee of death.

I understand if not mistaken, there are biblical figures that did not die. If it hasn't been disproven that there will be a rapture, it can't be ruled out that there will be those alive to be caught up and changed passing death .

Now aside from that, medical breakthroughs and medical science is evolving finding better ways to treat and heal, increasing lifespan possibilities.

What we have is a history of death. Doesn't cement the future. We had a history of a lot of things politically and socially. It doesn't cement the future.
At the most given deductive reasoning, certain things are concluded to happen. 

Just like you can't guarantee you'll do something the next moment or the next day. You can try to based on what you've done in a pattern or routine from the past week. That's deductive but it's not a non sequitur like a guarantee amounts to be .

Remember, satisfaction" guaranteed " OR your money back, is a non sequitur. There should really be no "OR".

"I see. What really is a fact then? "

A fact is pretty much the reality we experience backed by evidence. Something that hasn't happened yet is not a reality we're experiencing. We can project and or deductively conclude a reality. But without empirical presence, it really and physically doesn't exist nor the facts attached to it.

"A fact is something that usually refers to as being known to be true or even proved. "

Well when I say "fact" , it's something that is always, not usually but always true. Something that is known to be true means it's empirically occured so we base our knowledge by it. But if it's always true, it would mean no other factors can come in to change the result. If the result can change course, it's probability.

"Is it true that we need water to survive? "

Yes.
"Is that a fact? "

Yes.

"Is that a guarantee? "

No. A guarantee would be irrelevant because it's already a fact. A guarantee goes to something that hasn't been established. Why would there be assurance for something already evident?

These so called guarantees and promises are made for things yet to happen. You don't say " I promise you you're well rested after a restful slumber ".

Reason why I say a guarantee is a non sequitur because in the real world, nothing happens by assurance. But that's what the meaning of a guarantee is. A guarantee is simply a socially constructed attitude of sentiment reflecting a feel good idea. Just like "race" is a social construct but it doesn't reflect in the real world down to the biological, natural laws involving ecosystems and the cosmos.

"It's a guarantee you need water to survive. 

I do however get your point, but it is guaranteed. "

It's a fact but according to how you use the term guarantee, same thing.

But in my worldview it wouldn't be the same thing unless you can debunk how this term plays from my perspective.

" It is shown with heavy amounts of research that if you don't die from avoidable actions (smoking, drinking, etc) you make in your life, you will die because your organs will die. "

That is unless medical science advances to give us replacement mechanical organs. This possibility shouldn't be able to change the result of a fact if it's indeed a fact.
Do you see ?

"This is actually something that's not a real guarantee but something that is mentioned in many adds. 
This is promotion which usually tends to be something to gather attention, but isn't a real guarantee. "

That's what I'm talking about. The guarantees you're talking , you're identifying as facts.

"But just because this one is for advertisement, doesn't mean there aren't guarantees in general. "

I gather it comes down to how you define guarantee which by this point we should understand where each other is coming from.

Being that I specified with examples of what I was talking about and you agree, we can put this baby to rest.

"The real question is, can you prove it isn't a guarantee? Unless you have evidence of (even just one) person who has never died, than it continues to be a guarantee.
It hasn't been proved wrong. "

To keep from going in circles, let me put this question out there. 

Granted that divine intervention is possible to prevent death in what's called the end times or last days, is it still a guarantee which is a fact by your definition that all people will die?

"You're a human right? You would no longer be considered human. Are you 'God'? "

Your answer to the question above this one may disregard this question of yours I just posted. See I'm trying to elevate this debate to a higher level of thinking beyond facts into possibilities. 

This elevation doesn't tend to be a good idea though because the majority can't go that high to vote on it .

"Everything Meteorologists do are predictions."

With deductive reasoning. These aren't predictions like fortune telling. There is sound reason known in this case as studying weather patterns. These patterns can be touted so to happen. This is why networks are confident to air or broadcast weather stations to the public that they feel will rely and find confidence in their weather reports. If the weather station reports rain, rain occurs, the viewer trusts the weather channel. When the weather station reports it, the viewer is confident on account of the rain reported occurred, the viewer feels confident and feels guaranteed for the next report. In spite of 99 percent accuracy, no wonder for the confidence. But that one percent still makes all the difference to distinguish a fact.


"You will die. This body right now is just temporary, it will die. However, 'we' will be resurrected with a spiritual body.

Hopefully when talking about this i'll get more knowledge on the 'lord', but what are your thoughts?"

You're right, don't know much about the book, I agree with you. You can't call me criticizing because I agreed with you.

I'll end off here with basically perhaps for the next round , you can take a shot at any questions I asked. 

We can go further into the advances of medical science or just talk about the progress made so far that would indicate a modification in life expectancy and it continuing to change.




















Pro
#4
Real quick, I apologize if anything is out of the normal place or unanswered. I had to come back to this a few different times which in return messed me up. 

Extending: 
All previous claims.

Rebuttals: 
I have to point this out first because I can see now it's going to be an uphill battle.
The word "guarantee" is not another word for "fact".
I intend for this to be quick, I don't even need to really argue that a guarantee is a fact.

See, your argument right now is "a guarantee is not a fact" but that statement doesn't prove the following:
  • Are there really any such things as guarantees?
  • Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?
I don't need your guarantee or assurance because I have the evidence that I require water for hydration and several bodily organic functions.
Okay, so you admit it is a guarantee? You admit that my statement: "I guarantee you need to drink water for your physical body to live" is a guarantee?
You say it yourself "I don't need your guarantee" It doesn't matter if you need it or not, it is a guarantee and you just admitted to it. 

The next example of yours is interesting.

"I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't "

Due to you not knowing my personal beliefs, you have no evidence either way. You can't make the statement as a matter of fact or a guarantee.
Yes, I can. I don't need to know what you do or don't believe in. This statement is simple: "I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't". And that's a guarantee for everyone you either do or don't believe in something/someone religiously, there is no in between. 

I'm a bit surprised by those words, but hey, I can't confirm if you are throwing out the poker face or not considering your debates and mentions in this debate..
But it really doesn't matter as stated above ^^^^. 

It's like saying "I guarantee you need this product or my services". You don't even know if I need anything from the store you're selling out of . Slow your roll.
Comparing apples to oranges, now? I swear more debaters are comparing two *completely* different things the moment I get into the debate..

Alright, here is the thing. There is a between in "I guarantee you need this product or my services" but not "I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't". See, you don't need that product or service from that specific brand. But, in my example its not talking about needing a service or product from someone but my example is showing the mindset that everyone has.

This is just a flat assumption. You can assume that sure.
Actually cracked me up for a moment, I can assume? Let's go to the animal shelter, shall we? 

You are choosing to use the term as meaning fact. But according to this topic, according to my position I'm using it not as that.
Elaborate then. According to your position, you actually could refer to it as a fact. 

Let me confirm one thing as I said in the beginning, I don't need to refer to it as a fact to prove the following: 
  • Are there really any such things as guarantees?
  • Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?
If you haven't realized yourself, you are actually conceding to my point. How? You are stuck on the fact that guarantees are not a fact, but you've already proved one thing for me. They exist. We can go into this loophole for hours, but this debate is not talking about "A guarantee is not/is a fact". Though I can have some small engagement, I wouldn't like for this to get derailed. 

How about this con, we can try and use whatever definition you like. It won't affect me in any way, because once again, this debate is not talking about "A guarantee is not/is a fact". I can still try to disprove your position. 

So you have to argue my position. You can't refute something that isn't my stance unless you have ulterior dishonest motives to move the goalpost, strawman and misrepresent me.
You're the only one who seems to have other motives, you are trying to change the goal of this debate to "A guarantee is not/is a fact". I did entertain it for the first round, but hopefully i'll try to keep it limited. 

In any case, come on then. What really is your position? I'll argue and refute your stance. The first part of the topic is something where you take my example into consideration, I didn't expect much of you to try to make your own examples and disprove them. It's as if pre-planning an argument that you thought I was going to make. Though whatever the case is, my examples are most likely to be the priority for the first part. As for the second topic, its more so a shared burden between the both of us. 

Per resolution it doesn't matter what you think a guarantee is. I could even agree that what you think is a guarantee if I wanted and still continue this debate in my favor. 

How many people have never died? Well if you believe in divine intervention, this discredits a fact that I will die nor guarantee which is a non sequitur anyway. If it was just fact, I still wouldn't need a guarantee of death.
Keyword: If.

Do I? What if just for this debate I don't believe in divine intervention? I think if we continue with divine intervention, we might get off the path. But as long as you bring it up, I guess it's something to disprove. Divine intervention in the Bible actually happened, but in the end they still died. 

And is there scientific evidence of divine intervention? Not enough to be solid, so i'm not sure why this is being mentioned.

I understand if not mistaken, there are biblical figures that did not die. If it hasn't been disproven that there will be a rapture, it can't be ruled out that there will be those alive to be caught up and changed passing death .
It's actually funny because I thought you were 'all knowing' about the Bible based on your debates. Guess i'm wrong again. Biblical figures did die, I stated that above. Do you see them alive right now? And what you're thinking of is them not dying at the usual death period but the Bible will state they die. Do you see them alive now?

And I did state: "And is there scientific evidence of divine intervention? Not enough to be solid, so i'm not sure why this is being mentioned."

Now aside from that, medical breakthroughs and medical science is evolving finding better ways to treat and heal, increasing lifespan possibilities.

What we have is a history of death. Doesn't cement the future. We had a history of a lot of things politically and socially. It doesn't cement the future.
At the most given deductive reasoning, certain things are concluded to happen. 
Has it happened yet? Nope. Is it guaranteed to be a success? Nope. Is it guaranteed you will die though based on actual success of research on organs, yep. 

How many people have never died? Well if you believe in divine intervention, this discredits a fact that I will die nor guarantee which is a non sequitur anyway. If it was just fact, I still wouldn't need a guarantee of death.
So, let's throw this out the window because hey, I don't believe in divine intervention, how about that? 
Also, you cannot confirm that you would never die even with divine intervention. I think even with that, we as people (or that person) will still die. 

Once again, we can continue though if wanted. What does it matter if I believe in it or not, I guess.

I understand if not mistaken, there are biblical figures that did not die. If it hasn't been disproven that there will be a rapture, it can't be ruled out that there will be those alive to be caught up and changed passing death .
Correct, you're not mistaken. 

There are two things to say: 
  • If we are to add divine intervention, then it would have to be real. Though I think these are scientific facts? 
  • Some biblical figures did have some divine intervention towards death. But, they died in the end. Even with the extension, they still died like everyone else.
Now aside from that, medical breakthroughs and medical science is evolving finding better ways to treat and heal, increasing lifespan possibilities.
Yet it's not here, therefore, yes, right now we are guaranteed to die. 

A bit down below I also provide something a bit more extra when you begin talking about mechanical organs. 

What we have is a history of death. Doesn't cement the future. We had a history of a lot of things politically and socially. It doesn't cement the future.
No one said that all guarantees are set in stone for the entire future.

Just like you can't guarantee you'll do something the next moment or the next day. 
I guarantee I will wake up either living or dead. There are so many random things to say. 

Remember, satisfaction" guaranteed " OR your money back, is a non sequitur. There should really be no "OR".
I've already passed this.
Though you seem stuck on this one, so, let me reiterate a bit differently.
Here's the problem with the examples you give. They all are posed in different circumstances.

Satisfaction guaranteed is increasing retail profits. We as consumers, base it off product quality. Lets just say, the company is just confident alright? 
But, I will say you gave me the correct guarantee. "It is a guarantee you will be refunded if it's not up to your standards" which is what can be called, 'a real guarantee.' 

Let's focus more on my examples. If we keep focusing on yours we might lose track.
As you are denying guarantees exist, wouldn't you want to pay more attention to my examples? Giving a few examples doesn't out rule all of them.

Well when I say "fact" , it's something that is always, not usually but always true. Something that is known to be true means it's empirically occurred so we base our knowledge by it. But if it's always true, it would mean no other factors can come in to change the result. If the result can change course, it's probability.
Wonderful, a definition.. Alright, sure.
I ask that you provide some examples besides my own as facts. I'm curious because I bet they could also become a guarantee. 

These so called guarantees and promises are made for things yet to happen. You don't say " I promise you you're well rested after a restful slumber ".
You use the wrong examples, sometimes.. Well maybe this one is alright, this is a good way of reassuring someone with a guarantee. Because it is a guarantee. So yes, you can say that. 


Reason why I say a guarantee is a non sequitur because in the real world, nothing happens by assurance. But that's what the meaning of a guarantee is. A guarantee is simply a socially constructed attitude of sentiment reflecting a feel good idea. Just like "race" is a social construct but it doesn't reflect in the real world down to the biological, natural laws involving ecosystems and the cosmos.
Nothing happens by assurance you say, okay, when did a guarantee mean that? 

A guarantee can be something that is based off something that is trigger by something else. Do you follow that? Or does it need more elaboration? 

It's a fact but according to how you use the term guarantee, same thing.

But in my worldview it wouldn't be the same thing unless you can debunk how this term plays from my perspective.
Alright, sure, but i'm going to need you to elaborate. What really is your world view? I understand it, at least from what I think, but it seems you oppose it. 

That is unless medical science advances to give us replacement mechanical organs. This possibility shouldn't be able to change the result of a fact if it's indeed a fact.
Do you see ?
Would we be humans or robots?

At that point, would we need water? Is what you called a fact no longer a fact? (This is just a side question, that really, I don't know needs answering).

I gather it comes down to how you define guarantee which by this point we should understand where each other is coming from.
You're reckoning how it would usually work with contenders, though, I will say it does partly rely on what I define a guarantee as. 
I believe that I can come to terms with what you define a guarantee.

Though, as long as you keep giving examples of what guarantees you confirm my first part, "are there really guarantees".

What we really need now is:
  • "Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?"  
Being that I specified with examples of what I was talking about and you agree, we can put this baby to rest.
When did I agree? And with what? 
 
To keep from going in circles, let me put this question out there. 

Granted that divine intervention is possible to prevent death in what's called the end times or last days, is it still a guarantee which is a fact by your definition that all people will die?
Yes. 

Your answer to the question above this one may disregard this question of yours I just posted.
Not quite, but yeah the point did get across. 

See I'm trying to elevate this debate to a higher level of thinking beyond facts into possibilities. 
I got that impression before you even posted your argument. I was prepared for your level of thinking, even if not prepared correctly, I acknowledged that the moment I clicked "accept". 

This elevation doesn't tend to be a good idea though because the majority can't go that high to vote on it .
You know, ask voters to regard divine intervention. 
The moment I begin a debate I try to retain a state of 'no divine thing/god' exists or am I always like that? Who knows.. But i'm willing to involve it.

You're right, don't know much about the book, I agree with you. You can't call me criticizing because I agreed with you.
I'm a bit confused about where you thought I was criticizing? You mean the fact I mentioned I haven't got too much knowledge on the Bible? 

 I'll end off here with basically perhaps for the next round , you can take a shot at any questions I asked. 
Shot for them, did it score, did it miss? We'll see. 

We can go further into the advances of medical science or just talk about the progress made so far that would indicate a modification in life expectancy and it continuing to change.
Both, neither, one, I could argue. That's up for you to decide, I provided my sense and you can take it in whichever route you choose though hopefully still revolving around the actual debate in hand. 

Boy am I glad for the character limit.
Round 3
Con
#5
"See, your argument right now is "a guarantee is not a fact"".

This is why this is an uphill battle. It's not even an argument. I'm just telling you what I mean when using the term in the context of the topic.

You're using a different definition. If I was using yours, we'd have no debate. You will have to argue according to the way I use the term. Is all what I'm saying correct? If it is, debate over. If it is not correct according to how I'm using the term, then dispute it if you can.

That's what I really want to stress. You don't argue the validity of my position based on how you use the term guarantee because we're not arguing your position. 

"Okay, so you admit it is a guarantee? "

This question just proved what I said. You didn't get one iota. I love when we quote because the proof is in the details.

I'll requote.

"I don't need your guarantee or assurance because I have the evidence that I require water for hydration and several bodily organic functions."

I don't need the guarantee. The guarantee is not necessary. There is no need, so there is no point, no cause to assure me of something that's already proven. 

If I have proof that something works, what is the point in assuring it or guaranteeing it?

A guarantee as I've said when I use the term, it's to strongly tout , assure something will happen. Being that I already have evidence, that something has been demonstrated to happen repeatedly by what we can call the scientific method or using such empirical means . 
I promise you, you will get an "A" on your exam.  That's not the same as saying I have an "A" as a matter of fact on the test. 
This is what I'm saying. But from your viewpoint, you're conflating. Your definition of guarantee would conflate that example.

"You say it yourself "I don't need your guarantee" It doesn't matter if you need it or not, it is a guarantee and you just admitted to it. "

Anything that's a fact, you can call it a guarantee. That's your definition. That's what a fact means to you. But it can stand as fact without you calling it that so why would I need it ? Just because you personally call a fact a guarantee doesn't mean it's not just a straight up fact in and of itself. It would be a fact whether you choose to preferably call it a guarantee or not .

Do you get it now ?

Just like you saying "I'm going to give you the floor". I say I already got the floor so you saying you're going to give it to me is meaningless and pointless.

I already have it regardless so it is what it is standing on it's own. 

This is another thing I want you to get. Things are what they are . Makes no difference how you see it. 

That's why I said I don't need "your guarantee".  I don't need you making it a guarantee that something will happen. It's already fact that something happen.

I don't need a guarantee or promise for something to happen already proven.  When I say I promise you I'll be there, that's not a fact.

"Yes, I can. I don't need to know what you do or don't believe in. This statement is simple: "I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't". And that's a guarantee for everyone you either do or don't believe in something/someone religiously, there is no in between. "

Yes there is an in-between.
Newsflash !

There is an in-between. I neither believe nor disbelieve. It's called being neutral or just a "I don't know" stance. See, you don't know everything about everybody. You don't have that kind of evidence. You can promise which is guarantee and be wrong because your guarantee wasn't a fact anyway. 

"See, you don't need that product or service from that specific brand. "

You're speaking as fact so the store doesn't need to make a guarantee to me and I don't need it from them as the fact stands as is. 

That's my point, much appreciated.

"but my example is showing the mindset that everyone has."

Not a fact but your assumption. Newborn babies and comatose folks don't have functioning mindsets. A newborn is just developing for one thing.


"Actually cracked me up for a moment, I can assume? Let's go to the animal shelter, shall we? "

Well assumptions are worthless in debunking what I'm saying. It's not so much what you can or can't do. But what is anything worth to do if it can't refute anything?

Basically what I'm saying.

"Elaborate then. According to your position, you actually could refer to it as a fact. "

No, throw out "could refer to". What is my position? Not what it could be. We need certainty here.

" Elaborate then". Ok I'm just going to requote from the first round. All of the information needed to base everything on is in that first round.

"Let us start with a refresher on what a guarantee is. I feel as though the meaning of it has gotten lost in the comments.

Here it is in the way I mean it. A guarantee is not a fact but a declaration upstaged, purported, touted, strongly convicted to happen and will . But indeed no evidence to happen and that is my objection. "

Notice "Here it is in the way I mean it". 

Then I give an example of what I mean or what I'm talking about.

"For example, every product made by a company has sold so therefore it is guaranteed that the next one made will be sold.

It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?"

See if you were to have read in the first round that I mean guarantee works as fact, now everything that you've been saying would be valid counter points.

Follow the context for this topic.

"You are stuck on the fact that guarantees are not a fact,"

I should be stuck on it, that's my position. Of all the things I would be stuck on, it would be my position which in view, guarantees aren't facts. That's why I established that first off. You read that first round, my intent was to be transparent. No tricks, no games, no deception.

"but you've already proved one thing for me. They exist. "

I was waiting for this point to be brought up. 
I'll present this simple illustration to properly translate "are there any such things as guarantees?"

You say fairy tales exists. I ask are there any such things as unicorns, fairies , any other made up fictitious characters in those stories that constitute those tales?

You say no. Well so what are we saying here? 

Like a fairy tale, a guarantee exists as a non sequitur which negates the actual meaning of it in the real world.

It has to exist as a paradox in order to identify it as one.

You know something will happen because of evidence not just by you promising it's going to happen . That would be a non sequitur to say otherwise.

These paradoxes and non sequiturs don't exist in reality, in physical practicality.

Going back to the first round, I pointed this out when you think about things existing. The meaning of anything that actually has no weight, doesn't amount to anything is worth nothing.

"Let's stay following by the reality that actually is as we know it."

So we're following what exists or actually is in reality.

"How about this con, we can try and use whatever definition you like. It won't affect me in any way, because once again, this debate is not talking about "A guarantee is not/is a fact". I can still try to disprove your position. "

It does affect you . A person's position is shaped and can change based on how they use words. Let's suppose my position is aliens do exist. First thing you want to know , what do I mean by alien? 

You believe extraterrestrial aliens don't exist. When you know I don't mean extraterrestrial, you'd have to argue different or find no argument because you're in agreement.

Yes, try to refute my position that guarantees don't exist based on the example that is based on my position.

This was my example by the way which I think you agreed doesn't exist as well .

But we can pretend like you never agreed and  you can think of something to use as a rebuttal.

"It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?"

Your response.

"This is actually something that's not a real guarantee"

We'll purge this response of yours from this discussion.

"Per resolution it doesn't matter what you think a guarantee is. I could even agree that what you think is a guarantee if I wanted and still continue this debate in my favor. "

Hopefully it's clear by now how I'm using the word and I've explained to you how I'm using the word guarantee. We're not making this objective or the objective to try in argue a definition.

Definitions, we don't need to argue over. Definitions are a means of language to communicate what is meant by the words we use. As long as we can understand each other in our communication. No need to argue over it.

"Do I? What if just for this debate I don't believe in divine intervention? I think if we continue with divine intervention, we might get off the path. But as long as you bring it up, I guess it's something to disprove. Divine intervention in the Bible actually happened, but in the end they still died. "

No there are some individuals that didn't experience death. But besides all that , given that there will be a rapture in these last days, there are those that will not sleep or die but be changed.

Can you prove this won't happen?

"And is there scientific evidence of divine intervention?"

This is like an oxymoron. Science has nothing to do with divinity.

"Not enough to be solid, so i'm not sure why this is being mentioned."

Then you say "not enough ". I'm curious now. What little bit has been shown to prove divinity?

This is another non sequitur. It's either proven or not . This is being mentioned as a possibility regarding divine intervention. Being that we don't know everything, this possibility hasn't been ruled out. 

Like I say, can you prove divinity doesn't exist?

Then it sounds like you know about "a little bit". 

Maybe you better concede to this point because it's coming across convoluted from you.


"It's actually funny because I thought you were 'all knowing' about the Bible based on your debates. Guess i'm wrong again. "

Sure, you can be wrong in your thoughts. After all it wasn't a fact that I know all. It's your thought, it's your thought that everyone either believe or doesn't believe . These are your thoughts, not facts. According to your definition, not even your "guarantee".

"Do you see them alive right now? "

Yes in the scriptures. You may want to look at the scriptures first before coming back to this point.

"And what you're thinking of is them not dying at the usual death period but the Bible will state they die. "

Who is the"them" you're referring to?

"Do you see them alive now?"

Again, yes in the scriptures.

"Has it happened yet? Nope. Is it guaranteed to be a success? Nope. Is it guaranteed you will die though based on actual success of research on organs, yep."

How do you know what will happen or not? Unless you're a fortuneteller, you can be making money in Atlantic City with that gift.

There were days before X-rays existed. Days before the iron lung, before anesthesia, all different kinds of treatments, chemotherapy and cures existed, weren't even thought about. People like you back then saying the same thing. 

Can't speak about what can happen or can't particularly regarding the future, you never know. Don't be overconfident in declaring a so called guarantee like you know all things . 

There are things that don't exist today nobody can say will or won't exist in 100 years that'll change everything. 

"So, let's throw this out the window because hey, I don't believe in divine intervention, how about that? 
Also, you cannot confirm that you would never die even with divine intervention. I think even with that, we as people (or that person) will still die. "

We can't throw it out just because you don't have a rebuttal for it. We can't rule out the possibility unless you can prove otherwise.

"No one said that all guarantees are set in stone for the entire future."

You're kind of waffling here. Either these guarantees are facts like you say which would be set in stone or you can concede that the guarantees I'm talking about are correct. 

When something is a fact it is cemented solid. It doesn't waver with some of this or some of that. It either is or isn't. That's the nature of truth. Only opinions, assumptions and thoughts including perceptions waver.

"I guarantee I will wake up either living or dead."

Why can't you guarantee one or the other 100 percent?

It's just like betting on all the teams competing amongst one another.

The truth of it is, it's a fact that you're alive or living awake or asleep. So the only aspect of that scenario that is not a fact or a guarantee is that you will be dead. It's already a fact that you're alive awake or asleep. I'm not assuring you that you're alive while being alive while your awake. I'm not guaranteeing you're alive while you sleep or else it wouldn't be called sleep. It's just a fact you're alive while you sleep because that's what those who are alive do, duh.

"Lets just say, the company is just confident alright?"

You can call it confident. I call it a guarantee. Then what I call facts you call guarantees. We have quite the word salad here.

"It is a guarantee you will be refunded if it's not up to your standards" which is what can be called, 'a real guarantee.' "

Not a guarantee. You really have to get , we do not know what the future holds. This is really what I'm trying to get the public to see.


"As you are denying guarantees exist, wouldn't you want to pay more attention to my examples? "

We can look at your examples. Your examples are conflating facts and guarantees . You deny guarantees when it comes to my examples. So it's clear I'm valid based on my position and my position is what the topic is.

You read the topic and went into this with your own spin on things. That's common as we think the center is always what we think of first.

"I ask that you provide some examples besides my own as facts. I'm curious because I bet they could also become a guarantee. "

"Become a guarantee". I don't know what that means. From what I understand, guarantees don't become, they start as a basis. 

Examples of what, facts?

"Well maybe this one is alright, this is a good way of reassuring someone with a guarantee. Because it is a guarantee. So yes, you can say that. "

I know and feel well rested. What would the assurance be for after the*fact*? After the * fact*. Do you see?

I assure something will happen. Not after it already has. I think this is where you're struggling to comprehend what I'm talking about.

"Nothing happens by assurance you say, okay, when did a guarantee mean that? "

It's meant that at least as long as I've been aware of it. This is what I'm saying as the foundation of this topic. This is what the word means for the sake of this topic. This is what it means. This is what it means when I use the term . 
Going by how I use the term for the sake of clarity and the topic, am I correct in what I've said concerning it?

This is the core question. Drop from where you are and look at where I am. Am I valid from the basis I'm arguing from ? 

That's it. If not, how? 

"A guarantee can be something that is based off something that is trigger by something else. Do you follow that? Or does it need more elaboration? "

I guess. Seems like cause and effect. You're still arguing over the definition. You're still arguing from the way you define it. 

"Alright, sure, but i'm going to need you to elaborate. What really is your world view? I understand it, at least from what I think, but it seems you oppose it. "

My worldview in regards to this debate is how I'm defining the terms.

"Would we be humans or robots?"

I don't know. Simply put .

"When did I agree? And with what? "

When you said that's not a real guarantee.

"Granted that divine intervention is possible to prevent death in what's called the end times or last days, is it still a guarantee which is a fact by your definition that all people will die?
Yes. "

You responding with "yes" tells me your responding based on your beliefs about divine intervention. You're not answering based on the truth of the possible scenario.

If divine intervention occurs to keep all people from dying, of course all people are not dying. That's just the honest answer.

"I'm a bit confused about where you thought I was criticizing? You mean the fact I mentioned I haven't got too much knowledge on the Bible? "

I'm saying if it appears I'm criticizing you on your knowledge on the bible, I'm not .

Really enjoyable debate. Many debaters act scared to directly interact with me.












































Pro
#6
Time cauget up to me. Like really, all my debates.
I'll be posting my argument next round, I apologize for the inconvenience Mall.

Round 4
Con
#7
I got distracted yesterday and missed my turn on another topic. I had the points all finished up in the preview stage , didn't even hit submit.

One thing to miss a turn but all that effort for nothing.

But eat it, life goes forward.

So I can relate.
Pro
#8
Thank you Mall for your patience. I almost missed the clock, again.

I. Definitions:

Guarantee:
(According to con)
Assure something will happen

Definition of Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

II. Contentions additions

In General
It is a guarantee, which it is assured that you will get 30 days to return your item received from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7


Guaranteed to die (it is a fact your guaranteed to die)
It is known with intense research you are assured to die.

This is when you add facts and guarantees together. 
Is it a fact, okay, so we know facts are guaranteed to be true. 

"It is true that the assurance you are guaranteed to die, is true" 

III. Refutations: 
1:
"See, your argument right now is "a guarantee is not a fact"".

This is why this is an uphill battle. It's not even an argument. I'm just telling you what I mean when using the term in the context of the topic.
I'm trying to stress, none of that is needed per your resolution. If the resolution would've said "Dual topic: Are guarantees a fact? Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?"

The only time we should be addressing "fact" is for the second part of the topic.

You're using a different definition. If I was using yours, we'd have no debate. You will have to argue according to the way I use the term. Is all what I'm saying correct? If it is, debate over. If it is not correct according to how I'm using the term, then dispute it if you can.

That's what I really want to stress. You don't argue the validity of my position based on how you use the term guarantee because we're not arguing your position. 
I think this is a false to a degree, right now it's all about arguing the definitions for you. Your definition, I contest. 

"Okay, so you admit it is a guarantee? "

This question just proved what I said. You didn't get one iota. I love when we quote because the proof is in the details.

I'll requote.

"I don't need your guarantee or assurance because I have the evidence that I require water for hydration and several bodily organic functions."

I don't need the guarantee. The guarantee is not necessary. There is no need, so there is no point, no cause to assure me of something that's already proven. 

If I have proof that something works, what is the point in assuring it or guaranteeing it?
Okay, so, i'm going to go ahead and underline the main parts of this.  You still believe its a guarantee. That's the problem, you believe its a guarantee you just think you don't need it. 

So, are you trying to sway this debate into "a guarantee is not a fact because it's not necessary"? What if I said, "I guarantee there are seven continents".
I have two questions from that: 
  • Then is the guarantee projected off the fact? Because either way, it's a guarantee. Whether you need it or not.
  • With this in mind, how do we find common ground on a definition? Saying what a word is not, does not give me a definition. (I scroll down and these are your words: assure something will happen) 
If we use your definition of guarantee, that relates nowhere with fact and guarantee. If it's about to assure something to happen, I contest this. I don't think it's assuring something to happen fully, it can also be assuring something. So i'll repeat, "I either believe in something/someone religiously or I don't".

What does this have to do with facts? 

What if I do say: 
"I guarantee a refund within 30 days"? 

What if I do say that? What does this have to do with facts?This debate is swaying. If I go by your terms here's what's going to happen:
  • Dual topic, First topic: Are there really such things as guarantees? My response: "Yes, it is a guarantee that you get a refund within 30 days on x product/brand" 
  • Dual topic, Second topic: Is it really a fact you're guaranteed to die? My response: "Yes, it is known to be a fact that you are (here's your word) assured to die" 

Definition of Guarantee
(According to Con) 
assure something will happen

Definition of Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

So, now what is left for you to argue? You simply go into whether or not a fact is a guarantee but that's not even the focus. 
Does this really have to be an uphill battle for definitions? 

A guarantee as I've said when I use the term, it's to strongly tout , assure something will happen. Being that I already have evidence, that something has been demonstrated to happen repeatedly by what we can call the scientific method or using such empirical means . 
I promise you, you will get an "A" on your exam.  That's not the same as saying I have an "A" as a matter of fact on the test. 
This is what I'm saying. But from your viewpoint, you're conflating. Your definition of guarantee would conflate that example.
It's funny because you use these in the wrong context, I cannot promise i'll get an A, things happen.
But let's flip the switch. I already provided examples above. 


However: "I guarantee that there are seven continents on Earth because it is known as a fact" 

2:

"You say it yourself "I don't need your guarantee" It doesn't matter if you need it or not, it is a guarantee and you just admitted to it. "

Anything that's a fact, you can call it a guarantee. That's your definition. That's what a fact means to you. But it can stand as fact without you calling it that so why would I need it ? Just because you personally call a fact a guarantee doesn't mean it's not just a straight up fact in and of itself. It would be a fact whether you choose to preferably call it a guarantee or not .

Do you get it now ?
I have been, already understanding your view. But scroll up to find my point about continuing to talk about "a guarantee is/isn't a fact". 


Just like you saying "I'm going to give you the floor". I say I already got the floor so you saying you're going to give it to me is meaningless and pointless.

I already have it regardless so it is what it is standing on it's own. 

This is another thing I want you to get. Things are what they are . Makes no difference how you see it. 

That's why I said I don't need "your guarantee".  I don't need you making it a guarantee that something will happen. It's already fact that something happen.

I don't need a guarantee or promise for something to happen already proven.  When I say I promise you I'll be there, that's not a fact.
Okay, but it's there.. 

The same thing applies though, scroll up.

2:
"Yes, I can. I don't need to know what you do or don't believe in. This statement is simple: "I guarantee you either believe in someone/something religiously or you don't". And that's a guarantee for everyone you either do or don't believe in something/someone religiously, there is no in between. "

Yes there is an in-between.
Newsflash !

There is an in-between. I neither believe nor disbelieve. It's called being neutral or just a "I don't know" stance. See, you don't know everything about everybody. You don't have that kind of evidence. You can promise which is guarantee and be wrong because your guarantee wasn't a fact anyway. 
All this pokerface..

Alright.
Newsflash!
There is no in-between, if you don't believe in something/someone that means you don't believe in someone/something religiously. That's all there is to it. "I don't know" is, I currently DON'T believe in someone. Get it? If you don't know, you still don't currently believe in someone/something. You can even say "I guarantee you believe in Jesus or you don't". So yes, you either believe in someone/something or you don't.

3:
"See, you don't need that product or service from that specific brand. "

You're speaking as fact so the store doesn't need to make a guarantee to me and I don't need it from them as the fact stands as is. 

That's my point, much appreciated.
What? I'm just trying to show the in-between of your argument. With the example you provided and the example I provided. Completely different.

4:
"but my example is showing the mindset that everyone has."

Not a fact but your assumption. Newborn babies and comatose folks don't have functioning mindsets. A newborn is just developing for one thing.
It's not an assumption.. You either don't or do. These people, newborn babies as examples, still fit in this. As they are newborns, they don't believe in something or someone religiously. Someone who is affected in a coma, still does or doesn't believe in something/someone religiously. 

5: 

"Actually cracked me up for a moment, I can assume? Let's go to the animal shelter, shall we? "

Well assumptions are worthless in debunking what I'm saying. It's not so much what you can or can't do. But what is anything worth to do if it can't refute anything?

Basically what I'm saying.
That is (almost) the case.. You can't refute this topic. 
Why? Scroll up when I address that speaking about a "guarantee is not a fact" is irreverent.

6:
Here it is in the way I mean it. A guarantee is not a fact but a declaration upstaged, purported, touted, strongly convicted to happen and will . But indeed no evidence to happen and that is my objection. "
You also say: assure something will happen. 
Okay, now I had you restate for one reason: prove it has nothing to do with facts. You mention facts, but as a comparsion. That should not be the whole debate, so keep in mind they can exist

Let me restate: 
"What if I do say that? What does this have to do with facts?This debate is swaying. If I go by your terms here's what's going to happen:
  • Dual topic, First topic: Are there really such things as guarantees? My response: "Yes, it is a guarantee that you get a refund within 30 days on x product" 
  • Dual topic, Second topic: Is it really a fact you're guaranteed to die? My response: "Yes, it is known to be a fact that you are (here's your word) assured to die"" 
It's also in my contentions. 

7:

Notice "Here it is in the way I mean it". 

Then I give an example of what I mean or what I'm talking about.

"For example, every product made by a company has sold so therefore it is guaranteed that the next one made will be sold.

It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?"
I don't remember from this example saying satisfaction is guaranteed, but I explained how bussiness do this, right? 
Guarantees exist, it's the problem of using them in the wrong context. True or not.

8:
See if you were to have read in the first round that I mean guarantee works as fact, now everything that you've been saying would be valid counter points.

Follow the context for this topic.

"You are stuck on the fact that guarantees are not a fact,"

I should be stuck on it, that's my position. Of all the things I would be stuck on, it would be my position which in view, guarantees aren't facts. That's why I established that first off. You read that first round, my intent was to be transparent. No tricks, no games, no deception.
Your definition does not say that you need to be stuck on that. I can prove the topic with or without the definition as I did further above this. 

9:
"but you've already proved one thing for me. They exist. "

I was waiting for this point to be brought up. 
I'll present this simple illustration to properly translate "are there any such things as guarantees?"

You say fairy tales exists. I ask are there any such things as unicorns, fairies , any other made up fictitious characters in those stories that constitute those tales?

You say no. Well so what are we saying here? 

Like a fairy tale, a guarantee exists as a non sequitur which negates the actual meaning of it in the real world.

It has to exist as a paradox in order to identify it as one.

You know something will happen because of evidence not just by you promising it's going to happen . That would be a non sequitur to say otherwise.

These paradoxes and non sequiturs don't exist in reality, in physical practicality.

Going back to the first round, I pointed this out when you think about things existing. The meaning of anything that actually has no weight, doesn't amount to anything is worth nothing.
I was waiting for that comment as well. 

There's a difference. 
Controversially, they don't have to be 'real' to exist. Little Red Riding Hood is a fairy tale that exists, the book itself, but hence the words 'fairy tale' the characters inside the book don't exist in real life.

But my point is you actually concede to these guarantees. You even make your own guarantees. Such as satisfaction guarantee and money back guarantee. You may question the guarantee about satisfaction, but the money back guarantee is a guarantee at most.

10:
"Let's stay following by the reality that actually is as we know it."

So we're following what exists or actually is in reality.
Commented above ^

11:
"How about this con, we can try and use whatever definition you like. It won't affect me in any way, because once again, this debate is not talking about "A guarantee is not/is a fact". I can still try to disprove your position. "

It does affect you . A person's position is shaped and can change based on how they use words. Let's suppose my position is aliens do exist. First thing you want to know , what do I mean by alien? 

You believe extraterrestrial aliens don't exist. When you know I don't mean extraterrestrial, you'd have to argue different or find no argument because you're in agreement.
But you do mean that, that's exactly what the resolution is and how I interrupt it is up to me. However, like I said, nowhere does it talk about whether a guarantee is a fact or not.

I state this above as well or maybe below? I can't remember. But I say that I can add a guarantee with a fact.  

12:
Yes, try to refute my position that guarantees don't exist based on the example that is based on my position.

This was my example by the way which I think you agreed doesn't exist as well .

But we can pretend like you never agreed and  you can think of something to use as a rebuttal.
Woah, I never agreed that guarantees don't exist, that would be conceding all together. Guarantees do exist.

13:
"It's satisfaction guaranteed . If that's the case, why is there a money back " guarantee " on top of the original "guarantee"?"

Your response.

"This is actually something that's not a real guarantee"

We'll purge this response of yours from this discussion.
I never stated this as a guarantee, you did. I'm just stating that's how the business works. 

14:
"Per resolution it doesn't matter what you think a guarantee is. I could even agree that what you think is a guarantee if I wanted and still continue this debate in my favor. "

Hopefully it's clear by now how I'm using the word and I've explained to you how I'm using the word guarantee. We're not making this objective or the objective to try in argue a definition.

Definitions, we don't need to argue over. Definitions are a means of language to communicate what is meant by the words we use. As long as we can understand each other in our communication. No need to argue over it.
15:
"Do I? What if just for this debate I don't believe in divine intervention? I think if we continue with divine intervention, we might get off the path. But as long as you bring it up, I guess it's something to disprove. Divine intervention in the Bible actually happened, but in the end they still died. "

No there are some individuals that didn't experience death. But besides all that , given that there will be a rapture in these last days, there are those that will not sleep or die but be changed.

Can you prove this won't happen?
Who? You talk about these individuals, but who? 
I'm assuming rapture is used in the way of Biblical terms, you mean ascend into heaven at the 'calling'? They still die, just not in the usual way of dying. These bodies of ours can't go into heaven, they were made for Earth, not heaven. This 'change' you say is death.

16:
"And is there scientific evidence of divine intervention?"

This is like an oxymoron. Science has nothing to do with divinity.
Then it can't be proven, there's the point. How much can something be weighed if  we don't know if it is/isn't real? How do we know it's real? We don't. 

It's just like saying: "I'll go to heaven after I die"
or "I'll be reborn when I die".

None of that is certain, we can't know, until really, we do die. Or maybe we won't even know. 

17:
"Not enough to be solid, so i'm not sure why this is being mentioned."

Then you say "not enough ". I'm curious now. What little bit has been shown to prove divinity?
Hah, this is my way of saying: "I don't want to argue about divine intervention with the possibile proof, that is unknown to me, so i'll leave it by saying not enough to be solid without saying there is none." 

Basically, I don't research divine intervention. Therefore, if there was proof, I wouldn't know. And I surely wouldn't want it presented to me and having another thing to rebuttal about it. I leave that hanging in the air, no validation with the amount of proof or even proof at all.

18:
This is another non sequitur. It's either proven or not . This is being mentioned as a possibility regarding divine intervention. Being that we don't know everything, this possibility hasn't been ruled out. 

Like I say, can you prove divinity doesn't exist?
Can you prove it does?

19:
Then it sounds like you know about "a little bit". 

Maybe you better concede to this point because it's coming across convoluted from you.
I can say the same for some of my arguments. 
 
20:
"It's actually funny because I thought you were 'all knowing' about the Bible based on your debates. Guess i'm wrong again. "

Sure, you can be wrong in your thoughts. After all it wasn't a fact that I know all. It's your thought, it's your thought that everyone either believe or doesn't believe . These are your thoughts, not facts. According to your definition, not even your "guarantee".
Woah, woah, nowhere did I say that my thought was a guarantee or fact. It's just something to laugh about, I cannot tell if this is a poker face for this debate or not.

21:
"Do you see them alive right now? "

Yes in the scriptures. You may want to look at the scriptures first before coming back to this point.
Who? 

22:
"And what you're thinking of is them not dying at the usual death period but the Bible will state they die. "

Who is the"them" you're referring to?
Anyone who has had divine intervention and lived longer, as stated then the usual death period. 

23:
"Do you see them alive now?"

Again, yes in the scriptures.
Who? 

24: 
"Has it happened yet? Nope. Is it guaranteed to be a success? Nope. Is it guaranteed you will die though based on actual success of research on organs, yep."

How do you know what will happen or not? Unless you're a fortuneteller, you can be making money in Atlantic City with that gift.
I actually laughed here.. Anyways, it's been proven. With science and research. It has been assured and been proven multiple times.

25:
There were days before X-rays existed. Days before the iron lung, before anesthesia, all different kinds of treatments, chemotherapy and cures existed, weren't even thought about. People like you back then saying the same thing. 

Can't speak about what can happen or can't particularly regarding the future, you never know. Don't be overconfident in declaring a so called guarantee like you know all things . 

There are things that don't exist today nobody can say will or won't exist in 100 years that'll change everything. 
So, are you guaranteeing right now, that: "There are things that don't exist today nobody can say will or won't exist in 100 years that'll change everything." 
It's funny because you talk in some manners that makes it seem like your the one guaranteeing now.

Anyways.. Where is the proof this will happen? We already have proof you will die, where's your proof?

26:
"So, let's throw this out the window because hey, I don't believe in divine intervention, how about that? 
Also, you cannot confirm that you would never die even with divine intervention. I think even with that, we as people (or that person) will still die. "

We can't throw it out just because you don't have a rebuttal for it. We can't rule out the possibility unless you can prove otherwise.
I was being sarcastic. I can rebuttal it. 

However, we can rule it out. I state below or maybe above, where is the proof of divine intervention. Unless you can provide solid evidence, we can't weigh it. I still engage without needing. 

27:
"No one said that all guarantees are set in stone for the entire future."

You're kind of waffling here. Either these guarantees are facts like you say which would be set in stone or you can concede that the guarantees I'm talking about are correct. 

When something is a fact it is cemented solid. It doesn't waver with some of this or some of that. It either is or isn't. That's the nature of truth. Only opinions, assumptions and thoughts including perceptions waver.
I am waffling a tiny tiny bit, I know. I'm asking where that argument come from, and keyword: all. There might have been guarantees, that are unknown to me that have been removed. Or I might know, I just can't think of it. This is where I once again, leave those words hanging in the air. I'm leaving it for grabs, but to me it doesn't seem you take it. So yes, i'll continue by saying they are set in stone because they are assured. 

28:
"I guarantee I will wake up either living or dead."

Why can't you guarantee one or the other 100 percent?

It's just like betting on all the teams competing amongst one another.

The truth of it is, it's a fact that you're alive or living awake or asleep. So the only aspect of that scenario that is not a fact or a guarantee is that you will be dead. It's already a fact that you're alive awake or asleep. I'm not assuring you that you're alive while being alive while your awake. I'm not guaranteeing you're alive while you sleep or else it wouldn't be called sleep. It's just a fact you're alive while you sleep because that's what those who are alive do, duh.
Not really. As defined: "A fact is known or proved to be true", what if nobody knew about my death, not even me? Or if it wasn't proved I was dead?
But with a guarantee, I assure (ahead of time) that is what will happen. Can I also assure ahead of time (in other cases), with facts? Yes.

29:
"Lets just say, the company is just confident alright?"

You can call it confident. I call it a guarantee. Then what I call facts you call guarantees. We have quite the word salad here.
If you actually research how business does this, you might understand what i'm saying more, but I do get your point. However, it's not about "guaranteeing" someone's satisfaction, because that is impossible. 

The only way you can take this is if you say "If it is not satisfaction guaranteed you are guaranteed your money back" rather than saying "its satisfaction guaranteed and guaranteed to get your money back" 

Yes, then it can be a guarantee. You can take it into two contexts. 

30:
"It is a guarantee you will be refunded if it's not up to your standards" which is what can be called, 'a real guarantee.' "

Not a guarantee. You really have to get , we do not know what the future holds. This is really what I'm trying to get the public to see.
It's not? It's not assured, through their policy you get a refund? 

31:
"As you are denying guarantees exist, wouldn't you want to pay more attention to my examples? "

We can look at your examples. Your examples are conflating facts and guarantees . You deny guarantees when it comes to my examples. So it's clear I'm valid based on my position and my position is what the topic is.
I elaborate more on "satisfaction guarantee" a little above this. But then you mention "weather guarantees", that is a prediction. So, yes. I deny some.

But here's what you're not valid on. As con, you need to pay more attention to my examples as i'm the one proving guarantees exist. If we focus on your examples we get 2-3 examples out of x amount of guarantees. 

32:
You read the topic and went into this with your own spin on things. That's common as we think the center is always what we think of first.
'My own spin' is quite literally with everyone, even you.

33:
"I ask that you provide some examples besides my own as facts. I'm curious because I bet they could also become a guarantee. "

"Become a guarantee". I don't know what that means. From what I understand, guarantees don't become, they start as a basis. 

Examples of what, facts?
Yes, examples of facts. It sounds more stupid saying it, but i'll double down and add a guarantee to it. 
"Become a guarantee" is like I just said: "i'll double down and add a guarantee to it."
Maybe it doesn't sound right, hm? But you'll see.

34:
"Well maybe this one is alright, this is a good way of reassuring someone with a guarantee. Because it is a guarantee. So yes, you can say that. "

I know and feel well rested. What would the assurance be for after the*fact*? After the * fact*. Do you see?

I assure something will happen. Not after it already has. I think this is where you're struggling to comprehend what I'm talking about.
I addressed this above. When you say after the fact, I assume you mean, after the fact they have rested? In the way you put it, yes. 
But: "I assure if I can get a good night's sleep I will feel well rested", this is before you actually sleep. In the context you use it in, it's after the fact.

Yes, I see your point which I have been. Guarantee: I assure something will happen. 

Which still applies. You can still assure something will happen before it happens. Aka, my contention, "Is it a fact your guaranteed to die", it is known to be true, that you are assured to die". 

35:
"Nothing happens by assurance you say, okay, when did a guarantee mean that? "

It's meant that at least as long as I've been aware of it. This is what I'm saying as the foundation of this topic. This is what the word means for the sake of this topic. This is what it means. This is what it means when I use the term . 
Going by how I use the term for the sake of clarity and the topic, am I correct in what I've said concerning it?

This is the core question. Drop from where you are and look at where I am. Am I valid from the basis I'm arguing from ? 

That's it. If not, how? 
I addressed this above in my attempt to go by your definition.
But when I said that, I meant: You say nothing happens by assurance, but when did a guarantee always go off that? For example, when I assure you that I might do that thing because I assured it. But if I assure you're going to die, it's because of factors beyond control. I assure you that you're going to die because of those factors. 

I might add to this later to confirm. 

36:
"A guarantee can be something that is based off something that is trigger by something else. Do you follow that? Or does it need more elaboration? "

I guess. Seems like cause and effect. You're still arguing over the definition. You're still arguing from the way you define it. 
I addressed this above. 

37:
"Alright, sure, but i'm going to need you to elaborate. What really is your world view? I understand it, at least from what I think, but it seems you oppose it. "

My worldview in regards to this debate is how I'm defining the terms.
I addressed this above. 

38:
"Would we be humans or robots?"

I don't know. Simply put .
It was rhetorical, meant to prove my point.
Humans = defined to even die
Robots = don't die

39:
"When did I agree? And with what? "

When you said that's not a real guarantee.
Ah, alright. Above I also state more about satisfaction guarantees, which you know by reading, therefore i'm leaving this.

40:
"Granted that divine intervention is possible to prevent death in what's called the end times or last days, is it still a guarantee which is a fact by your definition that all people will die?
Yes. "

You responding with "yes" tells me your responding based on your beliefs about divine intervention. You're not answering based on the truth of the possible scenario.

If divine intervention occurs to keep all people from dying, of course all people are not dying. That's just the honest answer.
That is false to a degree. Where's the proof? In what religion with divine intervention has anyone had divine intervention and survived to this day? 
I have proof of everyone who has died with divine intervention, where's yours? This can be both a fact and guarantee. "I assure you, through evidence that is is known to happen that even with divine intervention we die". 

41:
"I'm a bit confused about where you thought I was criticizing? You mean the fact I mentioned I haven't got too much knowledge on the Bible? "

I'm saying if it appears I'm criticizing you on your knowledge on the bible, I'm not .
Oh, alright. I don't mind.

42:
Really enjoyable debate. Many debaters act scared to directly interact with me.
Agreed.

As this is the last round, unfortunately, anything you want me to elaborate on? Or confirm your position? 

III. Sources
Round 5
Con
#9
"As this is the last round, unfortunately, anything you want me to elaborate on? Or confirm your position?"

I don't believe so as I believe we exhausted everything.

But if you want to make a part 2 to this, we can have it.

"I'm trying to stress, none of that is needed per your resolution. If the resolution would've said "Dual topic: Are guarantees a fact? Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?"

The only time we should be addressing "fact" is for the second part of the topic."

This is still debating the definition. I'm not in this to argue definitions. That's why the topic statement is what it is.  See if you read the word guarantee how I define, you'd agree with the question "are there really such things as guarantees?"

This is why when I gave the example about the money back guarantee, you agreed "no such thing". But you're tied down to your way of defining the terms perhaps because it's all you know in arguing. You're not necessarily prepared for my actual position and its terms.

This is just exhausted at this point. Passed the second round, there should be no argument over this. I'm not arguing on definitions. As long as you understand what I mean, we can communicate effectively of our points. 

"I think this is a false to a degree, right now it's all about arguing the definitions for you. Your definition, I contest. "

I know you continue to argue definitions. I'm not making the conflict with that. I'm just making it clear. I think at this point you know where I've stood. We can just move on.

"Okay, so, i'm going to go ahead and underline the main parts of this. You still believe its a guarantee. That's the problem, you believe its a guarantee you just think you don't need it. "

You say I believe it. I didn't say that. There's no such  thing as a "guarantee YOU DON'T NEED". Put it this way. It's extra. If I'm for example safe in a situation where I have all the security measures in place and then you add secondary measures like insurance, I'm saying I don't need the insurance because I'm already safe. So in my situation, the insurance doesn't exist because I don't use it or it is not applied.

I don't have your insurance because I'm good. I'm good so I don't need it, I'm safe. So the insurance is futile, needless, non existent. I think you're misunderstanding that I have the insurance so to speak along with everything else and I'm just saying I don't need but I have it.

If I know something to be the case I don't require you promising it to be the case. You can make the promise, that's your elective prerogative. So it's a promise that you decide to make but it serves no real value of reality. It has no value so no function, it's a non existent manifestation.

When I don't know something will happen, then you can argue the promise has an impact like on my feelings, desires, hopes. It'll exist and can be applied because I have nothing else securing my situation or providing some sort of security which is more assurance which deals more in probability than a proven fixated outcome.

But then it only exists as a non sequitur which means it's still not reality. It's a fairy tale. That's the other aspect to it. This thing is multilayered. Now once more for the last of this debate, this is going by the guarantee in the way I mean it. 

Nothing happens because a promise is made. We need an actual cause, that's the reality. This is why this is referred to as a non sequitur.


"So, are you trying to sway this debate into "a guarantee is not a fact because it's not necessary"? What if I said, "I guarantee there are seven continents". "

There is no "swaying", it's what it is. You can't follow me that well because this is your first introduction to this type of position I would gather.  All of the above merges together or is interconnected. Due to not needing a guarantee based on what I mean by the word, keep that in mind everytime I use the word, due to not needing it the guarantee well why don't I?

The promise that something will happen is null and void because it has already happened. So what use would I have for it after the fact? When I HAD a restful slumber, I don't need a guarantee that it WILL be restful,see.  Being that I don't need the guarantee, I don't take it, so I don't have it and it doesn't apply nor will it, nor was it applied. It's non existent.

All of this is interrelated and it is multilayered I know. Not to mention having a dual topic on top of this. This debate session could of been twenty rounds and we can continue to explore all these different points. But like I said,we can always do a part 2.

Once more to keep in mind, I'm not arguing your definition of the word. I'm not saying the word doesn't mean what it means according to you . 
You can have that.

In short, based on the definition of strongly touting something that will happen, it doesn't exist or is a fairy tale. That's because in the real world, some cause which is demonstrated by evidence has something to happen and or will make happen. Being that we have evidence, it stands alone. What would be the strong conviction of assurance be for over it?

It's like I said with the restful slumber example or the "money back " guarantee example. 

I think if you just stick with what I put in short in a nutshell above and if you're honest, you'll get it .

It's pointless to have a money back guarantee when I know I'm satisfied with the product or I know I will if let's say if I just bought one or have something similar.

"Then is the guarantee projected off the fact? Because either way, it's a guarantee. Whether you need it or not."

All depends on what is meant by the word "guarantee". See, I don't steer away from the foundation. The basis is always what we mean when we say anything.

When you say projected I'm taking it to mean predicted. Now why is a prediction mixed with fact?

We can take it back to weather reports. Meteorologists project what the weather will be . It's not a fact that it will rain today but people may feel confident calling it a guarantee like you do, calling it that from the weather reports given.

So we have to recognize a distinction here to establish clarity.

"With this in mind, how do we find common ground on a definition? "

We don't bother with finding common ground. We're in a debate. In a debate someone's position is either correct or not based on an established point of terms and facts. 

This is why I ask the question based on the fact of how I define the term guarantee, is there any such thing as that?

Is there any such thing as a flying man?

You will say yes Peter Pan for example exists or doesn't.

Is there a such thing as things happening or will happen because of them being promised?

You say no. Then that agrees with me. If you say yes, then prove things happen or will happen by promising that they do or will .

Now you have your definition of the word guarantee, just put it aside for the sake of the topic. It'll just complicate this debate from here.

Look at this from the context of a world attached to this topic applying my worldview. From your meaning of the word there's no dispute as it's a totally different framework. I'm not arguing facts don't exist which you happen to call guarantees.

"If we use your definition of guarantee, that relates nowhere with fact and guarantee. If it's about to assure something to happen, I contest this. I don't think it's assuring something to happen fully, it can also be assuring something. So i'll repeat, "I either believe in something/someone religiously or I don't".

What does this have to do with facts? "

I don't quite follow all of this but I'll say it is not a fact or as you call it "guarantee" that all people either believe in something or a religion or not. It's not a fact. Number one, you don't know ALL people to provide you evidence on that. If you are saying "any and everyone is a either or", it's a claim to a belief I guess or whatever it is that possesses you to hold that stance.

"What if I do say: 
"I guarantee a refund within 30 days"? 

What if I do say that? What does this have to do with facts?This debate is swaying. "

You're getting lost in the sauce so you say it's swaying. Everything I've been saying has been consistent and repetitive like a record player. Nothing has changed. With a debate like this with so many avenues of points, I guess you can get lost and lose track of the original points  so it seems like it's shifting.

But I just draw you back to the centralized portion.

"In short, based on the definition of strongly touting something that will happen, it doesn't exist or is a fairy tale. That's because in the real world, some cause which is demonstrated by evidence has something to and or will make happen. Being that we have evidence, it stands alone. What would be the strong conviction of assurance be for over it?"


"Dual topic, First topic: Are there really such things as guarantees? My response: "Yes, it is a guarantee that you get a refund within 30 days on x product/brand" "

You don't know what I'll get in 30 days. It's your assumption you call a guarantee. You don't even know if I'll be alive to get one. An ironic point I'm aware but it's the truth ..

You say it's a guarantee to die but then you abandon that, supercede that with another so called guarantee you have no evidence surrounding that just as the 30 day one.

"Dual topic, Second topic: Is it really a fact you're guaranteed to die? My response: "Yes, it is known to be a fact that you are (here's your word) assured to die" "

As we can see I already demonstrated the non sequitur above in advance. See this topic just exposes the double talking non sequitur nature of this subject.

"Does this really have to be an uphill battle for definitions? "

No but you continue to point definitions and saying guarantees are facts and facts are guarantees.

Then when you make examples, you try to argue the point of guarantees existing. I say yes because they're examples of facts.

But you're calling them also guarantees and this is why I established this from the beginning. I've been consistent from the beginning. Fact is not another word for guarantee. I've maintained that and clinged to that.

"It's funny because you use these in the wrong context, I cannot promise i'll get an A, things happen."

It's the wrong context according to you. You say it's wrong instead of just agreeing according to the definition I'm using, according to the contexts I'm using, it would be correct.

I'm using these contexts to show what I'm talking about. It's not about a common ground standard definition or context here. It's according to a specific premise or terms, would something be correct or not based upon it?

It's based on a specific set of standards in a position using the rules given by the position that will then confirm the conclusion made by that position to be correct based on its own rules.

You have to step out your shoes and evaluate based on another,not your own.

"There is no in-between, if you don't believe in something/someone that means you don't believe in someone/something religiously. That's all there is to it. "

Your wrong. Why? For the sake of this topic I don't disbelieve nor have a non belief. I just take the stance "I don't know". The "I don't know " is the "in-between". 

We like binary scenarios because it's comfortable and secure as it appears we can know all things or solve all things. Like we can figure it all out. Sometimes people can't go one way or the other, they're undecided. It's what we'll call a middle ground, a gray area, in-between, whatever.

""I don't know" is, I currently DON'T believe in someone. Get it?"

I get that's what "I don't know " means to you. To you , to you it signifies such. See one thing I hope you get from this debate, you can't define somebody's personal position. You can't impose a one size fits all definition across the board to everyone and everything. Not everyone is going to fit in a box or conform and I certainly will not. This is why I say some of these things you call fact , guarantee, whatever, are assumptions in actuality.

"If you don't know, you still don't currently believe in someone/something. You can even say "I guarantee you believe in Jesus or you don't". So yes, you either believe in someone/something or you don't."

If I don't know what to believe I can't say either way. I use to argue strictly black and white myself but then I learned I don't know all things.

"As they are newborns, they don't believe in something or someone religiously. Someone who is affected in a coma, still does or doesn't believe in something/someone religiously. "

Newborns and comatose individuals in their current state don't have a mindset to dictate to believe or disbelieve in anything . You said EVERYONE has this mindset. A newborn doesn't have a mindset to decide to not believe or disbelieve. Like I said, newborns are expected to have their whole lives ahead of them to develop mindsets. When you say mindset, it's a thought process to determine stances. A newborn nor a person in a coma has a functioning mind at all. At least not to participate in a debate like this to challenge them. You're too loose with the word "EVERYONE" communicating ALL people.

"That is (almost) the case.. You can't refute this topic. "

I'm not supposed to refute the topic. I'm refuting your points. You can't even argue or you haven't so far from my point of terms. You have to move the goalpost to your definitions when I established what I meant in the first round. Just calling it for what it is. No insolence intended.

"You also say: assure something will happen. 
Okay, now I had you restate for one reason: prove it has nothing to do with facts."

No you're misunderstanding where I'm just explaining what I mean by the word. I really don't think you get that words can be used different depending on the person.

Like the word "racism". To some that use the term it only means that so called whites can be racist. To others it would mean anybody that can hold the belief system based on color would be one .

Then there are those that say "racism" doesn't exist because of how they define the term race.

"There's a difference. 
Controversially, they don't have to be 'real' to exist. Little Red Riding Hood is a fairy tale that exists, the book itself, but hence the words 'fairy tale' the characters inside the book don't exist in real life."

You just reiterated my point in your own words of course. Guarantees exist as non sequiturs. But like fairy tales, they don't exist as they're made up stories not in reality but you can say in imagination.
We're talking about in reality.

Guarantees are of the imagination. Wishful thinking you might say. Well, it makes you feel good to say , claim or give a promise. Facts can't be broken, they stand. But with promises, nah.

We're talking about in reality.

"But my point is you actually concede to these guarantees. You even make your own guarantees. Such as satisfaction guarantee and money back guarantee. You may question the guarantee about satisfaction, but the money back guarantee is a guarantee at most."

At this point I'll just conclude that you'll continue to misunderstood me on this topic but we at the end anyway. It was a good exchange nevertheless.


"However, like I said, nowhere does it talk about whether a guarantee is a fact or not.

I state this above as well or maybe below? I can't remember. But I say that I can add a guarantee with a fact.  "

Yeah yeah it's beating a dead horse at this point comrade. You can add whatever, your prerogative. Many of the points are just getting circular.

"Woah, I never agreed that guarantees don't exist, that would be conceding all together. Guarantees do exist."

Right, you made an exception when it came to "money back " guarantees. All I'm saying is, that's the only type of guarantee I'm talking about. I'm not talking about actual facts you call also guarantees.
You said regarding the with "money back" guarantees, they are not real guarantees. Well it's the same logic that's applied to everything else that's purported to be a guarantee.

Remember, note this, we're not applying it to things that are facts which you also call guarantees. This is the discrepancy that we obviously have. There's a definition discrepancy. But it is easy to clarify what we mean when we say anything. But I don't know if you're accustomed to adjust the usage of vocabulary based on a conversation or if you use terms as if they're universally set in stone.

Something to take away from this .

Not what is fact. I'm not talking about facts. If you broach an example of a fact, nevermind it. You're arguing the wrong idea again. Double check that it's actually not a fact first before introducing it.

"I never stated this as a guarantee, you did. I'm just stating that's how the business works. "

I'm sorry, anytime I use the term guarantee, it's in quotes. It's in name sake. All good.

"Who? You talk about these individuals, but who? 
I'm assuming rapture is used in the way of Biblical terms, you mean ascend into heaven at the 'calling'? They still die, just not in the usual way of dying. These bodies of ours can't go into heaven, they were made for Earth, not heaven. This 'change' you say is death."

At this late in the debate, we could of delved into this earlier. As far as who, what does it matter if you don't believe it ? From what I get you don't take the bible as evidence for anything. 

But for edification I believe Elijah and Enoch.

"Heb. 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. "

"2Kings 2:11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. "

You can't prove or have not proven God can't just take whom He takes going around death.

1 Corinthians 15

"51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"

Speak on the things that you know. Check the bible first before making the assertions. Now I don't have an opportunity to comeback for rebuttals but you delved into this further towards the end. But for the people to learn something anyhow, I dropped this in.

"Then it can't be proven, there's the point."

Then it can't be disproven either. Don't ever ever ever ever ever act like this don't work both ways. No nah, don't work here.

"How much can something be weighed if we don't know if it is/isn't real? How do we know it's real? We don't. "

Then don't say it's a fact when it comes to these things. You don't know. You'd know from a fact if you actually had a fact on it.

"None of that is certain, we can't know, until really, we do die. Or maybe we won't even know. "

Keep preaching to the choir. You keep mentioning we don't know, we don't know. Right , so ease up off calling us dying a fact. You don't know about the afterlife. You don't know what is waiting for us in the afterlife will come before we get there and have us harvested and caught up .

Based on history and currently we can not guarantee but we can deductively conclude that we die.

"Can you prove it does?"

In other words you can't disprove divinity. Now I'll do what you didn't do. I'll answer and say no. Given that, you can't rule out the possibility aside from the subject of evidence , that's the point.

"I can say the same for some of my arguments. "

Yes indeed.

"Woah, woah, nowhere did I say that my thought was a guarantee or fact. "

I'm saying your assumptions you think are facts are your thoughts.

"I actually laughed here.. Anyways, it's been proven. With science and research. It has been assured and been proven multiple times."

It's either proved or assured. But I understand you mix both together like fact and guarantee.

"So, are you guaranteeing right now, that: "There are things that don't exist today nobody can say will or won't exist in 100 years that'll change everything." 
It's funny because you talk in some manners that makes it seem like your the one guaranteeing now.

Anyways.. Where is the proof this will happen? We already have proof you will die, where's your proof?"

I'll just answer in short because it's getting too circular and you misunderstand many of my points.

To make it short so that you can comprehend. My response is "I don't know". You don't know unless you're a fortuneteller. We don't know. I can be honest, you can remain in delusion. We do not know what the further holds. Why do you think we're going over all of these POSSIBILITIES in this debate?

You haven't ruled them out. You can disbelieve them. You can say there's no proof. They still haven't been ruled out. Face that, leave it at that.

"However, we can rule it out. I state below or maybe above, where is the proof of divine intervention. Unless you can provide solid evidence, we can't weigh it. I still engage without needing. "

You can't rule it out until it's disproven. Whoever taught you that everything that doesn't exist without evidence to show for it taught you a half truth. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, not in this case.

"It's just a fact you're alive while you sleep because that's what those who are alive do, duh."

"Not really. As defined: "A fact is known or proved to be true", what if nobody knew about my death, not even me? Or if it wasn't proved I was dead?
But with a guarantee, I assure (ahead of time) that is what will happen. Can I also assure ahead of time (in other cases), with facts? Yes."

I'll just say it again.
"It's just a fact you're alive while you sleep because that's what those who are alive do, duh."

Very simple comrade.


"However, it's not about "guaranteeing" someone's satisfaction, because that is impossible. "

That's what I thought which makes it phony and a non sequitur. You come around eventually.


"But here's what you're not valid on. As con, you need to pay more attention to my examples as i'm the one proving guarantees exist. If we focus on your examples we get 2-3 examples out of x amount of guarantees. "

Your examples are facts which I don't dispute for the I don't know how many times. Those are facts which you happen to call guarantees. That is not my position for the I don't know how many times. 

"My own spin' is quite literally with everyone, even you."

According to you. One thing you notice, I'm cautious about instantly saying"everyone". Newborns don't even know what a guarantee is nor know these type of debates exist.

I don't know it all. I don't know all people.

"Yes, examples of facts. It sounds more stupid saying it, but i'll double down and add a guarantee to it. 
"Become a guarantee" is like I just said: "i'll double down and add a guarantee to it."
Maybe it doesn't sound right, hm? But you'll see."

It's a fact that you had a restful slumber. Why?
You're well rested. According to you , you say a guarantee is a fact so adding a guarantee (fact) to a fact is what that is. 

You're not tired and don't lack energy, that's a fact added to the other fact about having had the restful slumber so I don't know where you were trying to go with this.

It's coming down to semantics like much of this debate which has ran longer than the film "Gone With The Wind".

"But: "I assure if I can get a good night's sleep I will feel well rested", this is before you actually sleep. In the context you use it in, it's after the fact."

The word"assure" when I use it,it is to confidently promise something. That is different from the nature of fact. A promise is not fact. 

So being that you use the word "assure" in this sentence, let's play it out.

I promise that you will get a good night sleep . Stop right there. We're already declaring not a fact but a promise for whatever reason.

Now if I say it's a fact that I'll be rested after a restful sleep, there's two things there of evidence. One, the context clue is there with "restful sleep".  The other I feel confident about calling it a fact based on what has happened in the past with the same context so it's not deductive. It would be deductive if we acknowledge that there are other variables to possibly change the probability of outcome no matter how small the probability. I've had a restful sleep in the past which means I'll be rested hence calling it a restful sleep. So it's still after the fact because I've had a restful sleep before. I was well rested then as well as now. The nature of fact. Nothing changes, no variables, no other possibilities to affect a scenario or make new scenarios.

"Which still applies. You can still assure something will happen before it happens. Aka, my contention, "Is it a fact your guaranteed to die", it is known to be true, that you are assured to die". "

It comes convoluted to me but it's your thought process. I'm not going to dictate any of it.

"But when I said that, I meant: You say nothing happens by assurance, but when did a guarantee always go off that? "

It has gone like that since whenever it did in terms of being aware of the definition identifying by the definition. It always comes back to that .

Let's put the word "guarantee" aside. Those that believe things will happen because they just feel good, it feels right, feel sure a sports team is going to win the game, etc., without anything else but just a gut feeling and say "I promise you, I will not let you down." Nothing is bound, keyword bound to happen just off that. I call that guaranteeing somebody or something. A person makes a promise, that's what I'm calling it for the sake of this topic at least.

This is the complete context to one part of the topic. You got it right here. The feel of it right here .
That feel good feeling. I can feel like I can promise anybody anything. A world of make belief. 

I'm pushing this reality.

Like I say it comes down to words. If anything is based on "fact"-ors, I would say it's a fact this is the case . You use the term assure. We may mean the same thing. You just use the term guarantee alternatively. You should realize at this point it's just coming down to words being selected.

"It was rhetorical, meant to prove my point.
Humans = defined to even die
Robots = don't die"

Robots can die. We just commonly used the terms "shut down " or maybe"terminated". We've gone over about people dying. I'm leaving that be. 


"That is false to a degree. Where's the proof? In what religion with divine intervention has anyone had divine intervention and survived to this day? 
I have proof of everyone who has died with divine intervention, where's yours? "

Let me reiterate what I stated. I don't think it registered well.

"You're not answering based on the truth of the possible scenario. "

See, if you have understood by now that because the possibility HAS NOT been ruled out, it has nothing to do with me giving proof. There's no proof that it's impossible. You haven't proven God does not exist. I hope you finally get that . So therefore it's proven as fact that at the very least the possibility exists. I understand to disbelievers it may leave a sour taste, you don't want to acknowledge or hear that but it's truth. It'll be that way sometime.

"If divine intervention occurs to keep all people from dying, of course all people are not dying."

IF meaning the chance for it has not been disproven. Just because you don't believe in it, does not make it fact that all people will die.

It doesn't matter the history. The future is not set. Least not by us . It can in the next 100 days, 1000 days, 100 years, 1000 years when this occurs of what is referred to as the rapture, being caught up. Being changed , not sleep or dead as others are.

It doesn't matter the history of "racial segregation", slavery and all like that. Somebody just like you with this position that things are always going to be like it's "guaranteed" said "we have segregation today and segregation ALWAYS ".

I continue to say we do not know what the future holds.

It doesn't matter the history. 

In summary I'll reiterate this and keep in mind assurance as I use the word to mean promising, not another word for fact or evidence, proof or what we already know.

"In short, based on the definition of strongly touting something that will happen, it doesn't exist or is a fairy tale. That's because in the real world, some cause which is demonstrated by evidence has something to and or will make happen. Being that we have evidence, it stands alone. What would be the strong conviction of assurance be for over it?"

I yield it there.






























































Pro
#10
It's really just a repeat from here. As much as I want to comment on it with improved responses, time (yes I forgot) and efficiency come into play. And it seems my opponent agrees.

Short comment:
But if you want to make a part 2 to this, we can have it.
I am willing to have a part two.

But, be mindful, in part two's my mindset can quickly change from this debate (part one).

I'll quickly respond to the some of the most important things in pro's argument:
  • Nothing happens because of promise, aka guarantee.
But I want to make clear: If I guarantee to do the dishes instead of game and I do them did it happen because of the promise?
Would I have done the dishes without the guarantee or would I stick to keep gaming?

What happens because of anything? 
My subconscious that I guarantee I have?

A guarantee doesn't have to mean something is going to happen. I assure you that ;')

Newborns and comatose individuals in their current state don't have a mindset to dictate to believe or disbelieve in anything . You said EVERYONE has this mindset. A newborn doesn't have a mindset to decide to not believe or disbelieve. Like I said, newborns are expected to have their whole lives ahead of them to develop mindsets. When you say mindset, it's a thought process to determine stances. A newborn nor a person in a coma has a functioning mind at all. At least not to participate in a debate like this to challenge them. You're too loose with the word "EVERYONE" communicating ALL people.
Here's the thing. If I don't know Jesus Christ like at all, let's say its the only religion, do they believe in Jesus? No. They don't. Therefore, they religiously don't believe in Jesus. See?

Could they later in life? Yes. But are they now? No. So, they don't believe in Jesus Christ. It comes down to I do, or I don't. 

"There is no in-between, if you don't believe in something/someone that means you don't believe in someone/something religiously. That's all there is to it. "

Your wrong. Why? For the sake of this topic I don't disbelieve nor have a non belief. I just take the stance "I don't know". The "I don't know " is the "in-between". 

We like binary scenarios because it's comfortable and secure as it appears we can know all things or solve all things. Like we can figure it all out. Sometimes people can't go one way or the other, they're undecided. It's what we'll call a middle ground, a gray area, in-between, whatever.

""I don't know" is, I currently DON'T believe in someone. Get it?"

I get that's what "I don't know " means to you. To you , to you it signifies such. See one thing I hope you get from this debate, you can't define somebody's personal position. You can't impose a one size fits all definition across the board to everyone and everything. Not everyone is going to fit in a box or conform and I certainly will not. This is why I say some of these things you call fact , guarantee, whatever, are assumptions in actuality
Still applies. If you don't know, you don't believe in them, yet.
Can you enter the zone of relgiously 'praising' something or someone, if you then decide you relgiously believe in them? Yes. But as of right now the "I don't know" is still, I don't believe in them, yet. 

Such as if I was contemplating eating an orange or an apple, I don't know, but I don't have either. So, I still have nothing. 

--

Overall: 
I want to remind that guarantee's still exist and i'm sure that some guarantees are not "real guarantees" but the problem is that doesn't rule all guarantees out. Further, based on objective reality, death happens. And because of that objective reality, I can guarantee that death happens. Whether you want my guarantee or not is irrelevant, my guarantee is still a guarantee.

I think thats where i'll leave everything there. Thanks Mall.