Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#5107

The validity of my points in the debate "God exists" with ShtLp

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
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1315
rating
296
debates
40.37%
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.

We'll be reviewing the validity of my points in that debate. You and I will critique, make commentary.

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I thank you for taking this topic which is more like a discussion on the debate "God exists".

The individual I debated had a gripe over my not understanding their points and I want to analyze and dissect my points. As they were valid and reasonable and nothing that can be characterized as being deliberately obtuse in a "trollish" like fashion.

In the first round:
Shtlp had to say the following:

" As the burden of proof falls on the affirmative side"

I said the following:
"The question is what am I proving?

Topic just says God exists and the description says "The opponent will take the Pro, in that they think God does exist in the sense of an individual supernatural personality".

So I'm taking it that I am to prove what I think. I guess the only way to do that is by telling you.

I ask somebody what they think, they tell me and they can  back it up with action. 

Now that's where it can be demonstrated the proof.  Something that can be seen for yourself, witnessed, observed empirically, that's evidence of what someone thinks, believes in or has an opinion of .


You can have a strong belief backed up by action.  I see people demonstrate what they believe upon where they go and what they do. I witness people partaking in a ceremony that is in connection to the God they believe in, thinks exists.

You see me praying, giving thanks to God, that is proof that I think God exists."

Pretty reasonable and valid. This is why the opposing side came back in the next round and granted this was sensible.

Round 2

Shtlp had to say the following:

"Forgive me.if I wasn't specific enough. Pro should provide justification for why they think God exists in the sense of a supernatural individual personality. We can do this debate again after this one concludes if you would like. "

As we can see the opposing side is expressing their understanding and did not communicate as they've done in the gripe they sent me. Matter of fact, here they say we can debate again.

Here's the message from Shtlp:

11/11/2023, 11:43:15 PM
Please don't accept any more debates that I post."

So why the change up?
How did we go from agreeing that the opposing side was falling short of their communication and not mentioning me being slow to understand and criticizing my language. The opposing side criticizes my language and yet initially they admitted they weren't being clear.

This is just an example of someone that can't stand to be refuted and runs in fear of debating an individual. The opposing side in that debate just made themselves a public example .

Here's more of what they said:

11/16/2023, 5:23:41 PM
English is either your second language or you have reading/comprehension skills that are below what is worth my time in a debate. I would have to spend more time correcting your misunderstandings than making my argument. But it's OK, I think if I block you that should take care of thr problem. Peace be."

They admit they weren't clear in the debate but here they're complaining that I don't understand in private trying to hide the waffling.

Like I say again from a topic I had titled "THE FEAR of YOU knowing who YOU are fear to debate an individual.", debates involve clearing up misunderstandings from both sides. Of course this is going to occur because both opposing sides have two different positions or worldviews. If it's not my view of course it's rational to think I'm not going to understand things especially if it's a view I never held or thought about. 

You got to be able to explain your points, defend your points in a debate. So because this individual was apparently getting frustrated that they couldn't figure out how to be SPECIFIC enough, couldn't break down what they were saying in a succinct fashion, we get the juvenile, infantile behavior of "it's your fault " or "your wrong for my fault of not explaining sufficiently in a patient suitable debating manner".

I have countless people that never get what I'm saying but I don't get soar as this is to be expected. There are others that continue on the same fashion.

I digress. Let's continue on.

My response from round two:

"Justification as to why a supernatural personality would exist.

Being that I'm a being with a beginning, I see everything around me with a beginning. I think that everything wasn't always was. Everything that is is natural so before there was natural,there was what it was before the birth of natural before the natural outside the natural we'll call supernatural.

Personality is what is unique, personified and individualized. An entity or an existence like no other. Which an existence like no other would be non existence compared to the existence as we know it now .

Thus far I'm taking you down a line of reasoning deductively which has many valid connections and conclusions which is what just or justified comes out to be .

I'm justified or correct in thinking there is that that is beyond me as there has to be a history and events before me and before those events and before those and before those and that would go on and on to get to me where I am in this point in time. 

Just as I would be correct in thinking the time has to be set first in order for anyone to tell the time."

You can read through this and criticize, comment on any validity thereof.

In round 3, response from  ShtLp

"Mall, thank you for responding. It's extremely difficult to follow your arguments because of the grammar. That may be more a problem with me than with you. "

See , the opposing side here is still admitting their fault. 
We're in round three so for most of the debate they're genuine and they waver later or they're disingenuous. If that's the case, them using sarcasm if you will, trying to affect me just backfired on them getting them frustrated in the process.

After this round, they didn't respond either because they gave up thus conceding or just stumped on what to do.

Following question fromShtLp

"I think fundamentally your points can be challenged with this question; why do you assume that before our universe and its laws came to be that there was something more than the natural?"

My answer :
"Notice, go back and read. I never mentioned the term or terms "something more". I laid a foundation of explanation of whatever it was before anything existed describing it as whatever that was in the beginning or prior to. Not saying it's more or less. I can't say what it is exactly or quantify it. We don't know right. So the variable is X which we will call "supernatural ". It's any other whatever outside of reality as we know now and it can't really even be called a " what " because we still don't know other than it not being natural is X. See this is hard to grasp as it leaves us almost impossible to properly identify "what" was before anything. Our minds calculate in a reality in which we know or can know how to describe things.

So outside of what is natural, the label is supernatural. The question is, has the natural always been? That would be the question to challenge me with? But if or being that there's no evidence for natural laws and reality always being, is the challenge really there?

After all all the topic is asking about is proving what I think, not facts."

Is there anything about this not valid?


Following question fromShtLp

"Why couldn't it be that there was just a different type of natural before what we are familiar with now?"

My response and answer.
"Yeah well supernatural is different from natural isn't it? See we're not too far off from agreement. We just need to understand each other better. Non-existence is different from existence. If you want to call non-existence a different type of natural, you obviously free to your preference. I don't think you are alien to the same thought process that there was "whatever "before what we have now. It just comes down to how we identify it in communicating it."

Notice here again about our communication. It has to be clear and I believe I'm clarifying everything to the best I notice.

Following question fromShtLp

"I think you need to provide evidence that the supernatural is even possible before you can assert that it was the cause of anything. Do you have evidence that the supernatural is possible? "

My response and answer.

"If you believe and think like I do that the catalyst, whatever it was that gave us the natural world and reality as we know now, I'm CALLING that factor, supernatural."

Am I clear in communicating how I'm using terms in language?

I'm taking the effort to expound. I'm not deliberately trying to be confusing.

"See you have to really pay attention to how I'm using words and not so much going by the conventional conception that comes to mind when you see the words."

See I'm clear in how I'm using words and I've explained here for the opposing side to take note of that .


Then they come back in a message and talk about second languages. So therefore because I use words differently and because I don't conform to an imaginary preferential standard that the opposing side wants me to use because that was their only ace in the hole or trick up their sleeve, secret weapon if you will , here comes this wining, crying and griping "no fair , no fair, I wasn't expecting you to go there". 

Well you got to be prepared for anything in a debate. If you know your topic well, have your position down packed. Don't have it rehearsed but consider unconventional talking points,thinking critically versus regurgitating the status quo.

If you notice the opposing side in that debate, they were first looking for a do over to try to be ready being that they got an idea on the type of arguments I give. Towards the end of the debate they probably reconsidered and thought there was no chance at refuting me because my points can go further and further unconventional, it's hard to predict what to respond to.

People think there's an upper hand in being in the negative position and just placing all the burden on the pro position.

One example of an unconventional argument unexpected so much that there was no counter argument to refute it but to use a rehearsed counter that would not hold anyway. But if it's all you got, just throw it out there to see if it can actually do any damage.

I put forth a topic of someone else selecting a topic to debate on.

The individual that accepted deliberately picked a topic to them they thought would be one sided and could not be refuted conventionally .

People comment and say that's not fair. Why pick a topic that can't be argued or possibly refuted.

The topic was about 2+2 equaling over a six figure number. 


The opposing side couldn't even be specific enough at the start as they subconsciously knew it was extreme and ridiculous.

But I came back with an extreme. Two plus two will equal any wrong number including six figures when calculating wrong.

Although this is true, I didn't get a counterpoint to that. Why? There was nothing in the preplanned points to apply to that. I just got a regurgitated, expected, conventional response that did not counter anything.

Two plus two cannot equal anything but four. Ok, it cannot equal anything but that when calculated properly.



So some can't take the fact of some things you can't prepare for to be irrefuted. It pays to think critically on your feet. 

This is where edification comes in. I'm here for that which broadens the minds expanding the horizons thinking outside the box.


Con
#2
I said the following:
"The question is what am I proving?
Topic just says God exists and the description says "The opponent will take the Pro, in that they think God does exist in the sense of an individual supernatural personality".
So I'm taking it that I am to prove what I think. I guess the only way to do that is by telling you.
He made a poorly worded description there. His mistake.

His messages to you do seem disrespectful, but he also forgets that it is he who made the poorly worded debate to begin with.

Debates are all about definitions and proper wording.

You got to be able to explain your points, defend your points in a debate. So because this individual was apparently getting frustrated that they couldn't figure out how to be SPECIFIC enough, couldn't break down what they were saying in a succinct fashion, we get the juvenile, infantile behavior of "it's your fault " or "your wrong for my fault of not explaining sufficiently in a patient suitable debating manner".
When people make a mistake, they search for a way out to look as least guilty as possible. I would say that him blaming you for what is essentially his mistake is not only dishonest, but he seems to expect to be rewarded for a mistake.


"Mall, thank you for responding. It's extremely difficult to follow your arguments because of the grammar. That may be more a problem with me than with you. "
I would say that he was just trying to find a way out of the debate he created. He realized his debate was poorly constructed, but he didnt want to take the blame or just wanted to feel better about himself by putting others down.


"If you believe and think like I do that the catalyst, whatever it was that gave us the natural world and reality as we know now, I'm CALLING that factor, supernatural."
The natural world has a beginning, and we cannot say that the beginning is natural world itself. That would be circular. So yes, its likely supernatural cause.

But I came back with an extreme. Two plus two will equal any wrong number including six figures when calculating wrong.
Yes, I remember that debate. It was a good counter to what was essentially a bad one-sided topic. Not everyone would be able to defend the position that you defended. Many would not even try, let alone succeed.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Wow. Enough said. Couldn't of said it any better myself.

I mean it's obvious when you're the only one, the oooooonly one that has reached out like this individual that has done what they did.

I'm sure there are tons of individuals that have to explain things. These individuals interact with those that have trouble understanding. It's not "well I can't debate that individual again". 

It is what goes with the debate territory. As this individual of the debate "God exists" responded, it's the fear or uneasiness, discomfort of going up against an individual again and this is an indirect expression of that going so far as to block my individual member rights to participate in topics such as everyone here.

There was this one person that continued to accept a topic of mine. I offered the same topic several times in a row to give a chance for several members to take the challenge. The SAME individual accepted several times in a row . Mind you, the same one accepted the same topic at nearly the same time. What was the point?

That could have been considered intrusive harassing behavior but I didn't even block the individual.

You know so I stress again, do not act like you're the only one that has to exercise patience with someone.

Using that as a reason to block someone would be constant blocking shutting the whole site down.
Con
#4
I dont know what more needs to be said.

Everyone has a choice not to interact with someone, but not interacting is usually a bad thing, since interaction is the point of debates.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Individuals had more courage on debate dot org. Of course they shut that site down.

I notice also that individuals appear to be apprehensive in interacting, communicating in debates. They avoid answering questions. They avoid reading everything. They read into things, don't quote exact words. Misrepresent and everything in order to play this "I got to win, you must lose" stuff .

Trust and believe you get none of this in honest discussions where the other individual tends to be more attentive and apt to learn.

Otherwise that defensive wall is up, up high and mega thick. Often times bringing about the expression talking to a wall. You can communicate with me. I can't say I will always understand everything.

But that is what comes with . My fellow comrades, understand that .



Con
#6
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
#7
Oh I rest my case.
Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
Case closed.
I think the other participant on this topic for their thoughts and points.
Con
#10
Forfeited