Which of the debate participants brought up Wegner & Wheatley? Uhhh.. didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Which if the debate participants brought up Bear & Bloom? Uhhh... didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Care to review the voting policy on bringing up outside content to justify a vote?
You tend to make declarative statements about what others think, but you don't know what others think. Have I ever said that? An unfounded accusation. That said, you don't like the vote, you can report. That is your proper responser; don't complain in comments. Read the rest of my reply to you in PM. No need to share it.
You will note, in passing, that the vote gave me points. Don't know what "no points" you're talking about. That is not the basis of my report, but, if that is how you want to satisfy yourself, I guess it's better than premature efactulation.
Profoundly sorry for the late response. I've been out of touch for the past week in the remote high country - no internet service, so I've just now realized on my return that I have totally blown this debate. Yes, I zoned out that, as instigator, you were Con. The high majority of debates has Pro as instigator [about 92%], and I just missed it. Even you track the same percentage of Pro instigations, also 92% of all your debates, so it appears to be typical.
No excuse; I blew it. On my next round, having blown away round two because of my trip, I will concede the debate to you.
I missed the announcement that you're a site spokesman. Speak for yourself. You cannot hide in the community. Little people? Argue for your limitations, but keep them to yourself because you do not speak for the rest,
N ow that I have voted, and that this debate really was never a debate, I can now render a comment in the Description that takes a matter-of-fact view that it appears most Christians believe, if they really think about it, and much, I think, is drawn from John 4: 24: "God is a Spirit..." Well, that sounds pretty definitive, but note the elipsis; there's more to the verse than that truncated version. The rest says, "...and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So, how does a person, a mortal being, worship in the spirit, and might the same attitude be descriptive of God? Not that God is physically a spirit, only, but that he is spiritual; i.e., of a religiously contemplative attitude. Consider the commentary of the resurrected Lord, from Luke, speaking to his apostles: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24: 39 Jesus resurrected as a glorified being having a perfect, physical body, which he maintained for the few days he spent among his disciples even as he ascended to heaven. What, we explain this away by claiming he reverted to a spirit upon ascension? Why? Because, we think, a physical body cannot ascend into heaven? Gravity, and all that? Then how did Jesus walk on water? Even Peter managed to do it until he let fear overwhelm him. Physicality must have capabilities we don't imagine, because physics gets in the way. Holy science. Well, science changes its mind all the time, or did we forget that just two centuries ago, we still thought Earth centered the universe? You think maybe Christ has a handle on other laws of physics than those we know?
So, since Jesus said on several occasions that he and the Father are one; see him, you've seen the Father, this doesn't mean they are one and the same person. Jesus did not pray to himself; absurd. They're separate individuals. And both are resurrected, physical beings. Not that this changes the debate, even as it will be argued in another format. Just that I rankle at such a definition of God.
Pro's source, William Craig, with whom I disagree all the time, draws upon the doubtful expertise of Swinburne, who not only thinks God is a spirit, but that God is his personal name. No. Even the term we have in English is drawn from the Hebrew, Elohim, which is not a personal name, either, but a title, and, as well, happens to imply multiple gods, not just one. As in Gen 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."
Pro forfeited the 1st, 2nd, and 4th rounds; 75% of rounds. Not to mention that the 3rd round is merely repeating the Topic, which lack's sufficient proof of an argument's merit. Showing up is not a sufficient argument; no better than a student raising a hand to confirm presence in a classroom, which is all showing up implies, and not that participation is accomplished. Debate requires at least little more than even just participation. Allegedly, we're not children, here. Full forfeit.
Damn. Since my last post v#8, drleb has been banned at his request, so I guess the debate is done, just have to wait out the schedule.
Daddy: nope, that's not the reason. I know they're personal reasons, and deeply held, but hje's not talking. This debate has naught to do with it.
Happy trails, Doc.
Then so was your home computer, your cellphone, your tablet, your ipod, earbuds, Bluetooth, all your apps...
In general, rocket tech, miniaturization tech, satellites, global communication network, contemplation of Earth at a distance.
Some other spin-offs:
wireless hand-held power tools
fire protection
nutritional advances and conveniences
medical advances
electronic circuitry miniaturization
science advances
future potential
probably one of the biggest: prevented the cold war going hot
possibilities for going back:
paper-thin solar panel technology - impossible [so far] on Earth, easy on the moon - energy increase on earth by simple trnsmission
moon-based radio astronomy
moon tourism & colonization
cost benefit of going to the moon 50 years ago:
every dollar spent has a return of up to $70 value.
That's just off the top of my head. Not worth it? Maybe not to you
I am not declaring anything, yet; not until the debate has concluded, however it concludes, however, it appears as this is my opponent's last day before leaving the site, as he's announced, anyway, it appears we've heard our last. I hope not...
Or, if you want a 2 round debate, make it that. Or if you're that jealous of having the last say, then cancel this debate and re-enter as Con and I'll take the first frame of rounds 1 - X and you get your holy last say. I don't care. As I've previously said, excellence in argument, not having the last frame, is the winning formula. I've said my last word on any debate I engage: No waivers.
I will not flake out on you. Eliminate the stupid waivers of rounds [which violates policy, anyway], and I'll take this. We each argue 3 full rounds, but I would prefer the addition of no new argument in the last [3rd] round. Rebuttal, defense, conclusion only in 3rd round. Those are my offered terms.
You'll notice I've not yet had a completed debate, yet, but I know how I'd respond. If someone forfeits after I've prepared arguments, and I do have a debate in voting, now, that has already had that result. I win, and will take pleasure in that, and be grateful for the experience and knowledge gained in research for the arguments I made. MY plan is to always have at least two rounds of argument prepared before I initiate a debate, and I accepted debates and had one round prepared, less rebuttals, before the initiator has posted their first round. Don't worry so much about my bunched panties, cupcake, and I won't mention yours, ok? Yeah, I think the judge was a creep, not worthy of wearing his robes, and glad he was stripped of them, because, bottom line, the defendant was guilty of rape, and the judge treated it like it was a case of stealing candy.
Go ahead, if that floats your boat. Can't stop you, can I? Nor would I. People refuse debates all the time. Does that mean they're all cowards. or, might it mean the subject just does not interest them? That happens to be my position, thanks, but, you think as you will.
A little education is in order:
From the Help Center, Debates, Argumentation:
"In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds at the time of creation."
That means in your challenge, you established a 3-round debate. The expectation is that you enter 3 rounds of argument/rebuttal/ defense... which does not allow for a waived round. Just following the guidelines, cupcake. Being that is the standard, in your debate challenge, my argument would be a kritik. Sorry, not interested.
Nice try, but you set up your debate with a waiver before knowing who your opponent would be, so stop trying to say any different, now. As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word, whether you are Pro or Con.So, do the prep work necessary for that role and debate even if your opponent forfeits. That's just the risk you take. I still maintain that waiving is a coward's way.
You may attempt that topical migration from what the topic statement and description specify, but voters may not buy it, and, now having accepted the debate as is, without your migration to include all animals as made in your comment post #3, I certainly do not and will argue against it as being outside the scope of the topic statement since that statement specifies human, only.
I make the same assumption as RationalMadman; this is a truism. what other Earth lifer form would assume responsibility for human population? Aardvarks?
Also, it appears there is couched argument that Earth is presently overpopulated. Will Pro assume BoP of the claim, or is that expected to be a truism, as well?
Thanks for your commentary. I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present. I present my BoP. Perhaps I ought to remove a suggestede BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open aeason.
I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers." I have composed a number of essays on the subject at various times in my life, but had not really thought of it when developing this challenge, but is definitely related.Not so familiar with Schiller.
Hey, you're not debating me. But remember you are saying it is specific to general knowledge, so, just how detailed are generalities? Don't bother answering; like I said, this isn't about or by me; I'm a bystander blowing smoke in the wind.
Which of the debate participants brought up Wegner & Wheatley? Uhhh.. didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Which if the debate participants brought up Bear & Bloom? Uhhh... didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Care to review the voting policy on bringing up outside content to justify a vote?
Thanks for voting, but I'm not sure you're sure which participate you're voting for. You seem to confuse Pro and Con on a continual basis.
Thank you for voting
"I know you don't like me."
You tend to make declarative statements about what others think, but you don't know what others think. Have I ever said that? An unfounded accusation. That said, you don't like the vote, you can report. That is your proper responser; don't complain in comments. Read the rest of my reply to you in PM. No need to share it.
Thanks for voting.
You will note, in passing, that the vote gave me points. Don't know what "no points" you're talking about. That is not the basis of my report, but, if that is how you want to satisfy yourself, I guess it's better than premature efactulation.
Do I? Don't think so. You do know how to win gracefully, don't you? That, I can disprove
Profoundly sorry for the late response. I've been out of touch for the past week in the remote high country - no internet service, so I've just now realized on my return that I have totally blown this debate. Yes, I zoned out that, as instigator, you were Con. The high majority of debates has Pro as instigator [about 92%], and I just missed it. Even you track the same percentage of Pro instigations, also 92% of all your debates, so it appears to be typical.
No excuse; I blew it. On my next round, having blown away round two because of my trip, I will concede the debate to you.
Who?
I missed the announcement that you're a site spokesman. Speak for yourself. You cannot hide in the community. Little people? Argue for your limitations, but keep them to yourself because you do not speak for the rest,
I look forward to a good, robust debate. It is a really good subject in my book. Best of luck.
N ow that I have voted, and that this debate really was never a debate, I can now render a comment in the Description that takes a matter-of-fact view that it appears most Christians believe, if they really think about it, and much, I think, is drawn from John 4: 24: "God is a Spirit..." Well, that sounds pretty definitive, but note the elipsis; there's more to the verse than that truncated version. The rest says, "...and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So, how does a person, a mortal being, worship in the spirit, and might the same attitude be descriptive of God? Not that God is physically a spirit, only, but that he is spiritual; i.e., of a religiously contemplative attitude. Consider the commentary of the resurrected Lord, from Luke, speaking to his apostles: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24: 39 Jesus resurrected as a glorified being having a perfect, physical body, which he maintained for the few days he spent among his disciples even as he ascended to heaven. What, we explain this away by claiming he reverted to a spirit upon ascension? Why? Because, we think, a physical body cannot ascend into heaven? Gravity, and all that? Then how did Jesus walk on water? Even Peter managed to do it until he let fear overwhelm him. Physicality must have capabilities we don't imagine, because physics gets in the way. Holy science. Well, science changes its mind all the time, or did we forget that just two centuries ago, we still thought Earth centered the universe? You think maybe Christ has a handle on other laws of physics than those we know?
So, since Jesus said on several occasions that he and the Father are one; see him, you've seen the Father, this doesn't mean they are one and the same person. Jesus did not pray to himself; absurd. They're separate individuals. And both are resurrected, physical beings. Not that this changes the debate, even as it will be argued in another format. Just that I rankle at such a definition of God.
Pro's source, William Craig, with whom I disagree all the time, draws upon the doubtful expertise of Swinburne, who not only thinks God is a spirit, but that God is his personal name. No. Even the term we have in English is drawn from the Hebrew, Elohim, which is not a personal name, either, but a title, and, as well, happens to imply multiple gods, not just one. As in Gen 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."
Pro forfeited the 1st, 2nd, and 4th rounds; 75% of rounds. Not to mention that the 3rd round is merely repeating the Topic, which lack's sufficient proof of an argument's merit. Showing up is not a sufficient argument; no better than a student raising a hand to confirm presence in a classroom, which is all showing up implies, and not that participation is accomplished. Debate requires at least little more than even just participation. Allegedly, we're not children, here. Full forfeit.
Pro round 3 references:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html
2 https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html
3 https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-14.htm
4 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-astrology-real-heres-what-science-says/
5 https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/11-3-is-personality-more-nature-or-more-nurture-behavioral-and-molecular-genetics/
6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0263-6
7 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_santayana_101521
8 https://biblehub.com/matthew/14-25.htm
By the way, welcome to the site!
Damn. Since my last post v#8, drleb has been banned at his request, so I guess the debate is done, just have to wait out the schedule.
Daddy: nope, that's not the reason. I know they're personal reasons, and deeply held, but hje's not talking. This debate has naught to do with it.
Happy trails, Doc.
Then so was your home computer, your cellphone, your tablet, your ipod, earbuds, Bluetooth, all your apps...
In general, rocket tech, miniaturization tech, satellites, global communication network, contemplation of Earth at a distance.
Some other spin-offs:
wireless hand-held power tools
fire protection
nutritional advances and conveniences
medical advances
electronic circuitry miniaturization
science advances
future potential
probably one of the biggest: prevented the cold war going hot
possibilities for going back:
paper-thin solar panel technology - impossible [so far] on Earth, easy on the moon - energy increase on earth by simple trnsmission
moon-based radio astronomy
moon tourism & colonization
cost benefit of going to the moon 50 years ago:
every dollar spent has a return of up to $70 value.
That's just off the top of my head. Not worth it? Maybe not to you
I am not declaring anything, yet; not until the debate has concluded, however it concludes, however, it appears as this is my opponent's last day before leaving the site, as he's announced, anyway, it appears we've heard our last. I hope not...
Agree with Bones. Why is everyone so shy? Come on, vote.
OH good. I'll try to get a second round posted today, and maybe you'll have time for a third round, too. I hope so.
Sorry to see that drlebronski has left the site. Happy trails, my friend.
Or, if you want a 2 round debate, make it that. Or if you're that jealous of having the last say, then cancel this debate and re-enter as Con and I'll take the first frame of rounds 1 - X and you get your holy last say. I don't care. As I've previously said, excellence in argument, not having the last frame, is the winning formula. I've said my last word on any debate I engage: No waivers.
I will not flake out on you. Eliminate the stupid waivers of rounds [which violates policy, anyway], and I'll take this. We each argue 3 full rounds, but I would prefer the addition of no new argument in the last [3rd] round. Rebuttal, defense, conclusion only in 3rd round. Those are my offered terms.
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
You'll notice I've not yet had a completed debate, yet, but I know how I'd respond. If someone forfeits after I've prepared arguments, and I do have a debate in voting, now, that has already had that result. I win, and will take pleasure in that, and be grateful for the experience and knowledge gained in research for the arguments I made. MY plan is to always have at least two rounds of argument prepared before I initiate a debate, and I accepted debates and had one round prepared, less rebuttals, before the initiator has posted their first round. Don't worry so much about my bunched panties, cupcake, and I won't mention yours, ok? Yeah, I think the judge was a creep, not worthy of wearing his robes, and glad he was stripped of them, because, bottom line, the defendant was guilty of rape, and the judge treated it like it was a case of stealing candy.
Go ahead, if that floats your boat. Can't stop you, can I? Nor would I. People refuse debates all the time. Does that mean they're all cowards. or, might it mean the subject just does not interest them? That happens to be my position, thanks, but, you think as you will.
Besides, you're going to win the debate by forfeit, so keep your powder in your pocket.
"There's no justification for that.Argumentation"
A little education is in order:
From the Help Center, Debates, Argumentation:
"In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds at the time of creation."
That means in your challenge, you established a 3-round debate. The expectation is that you enter 3 rounds of argument/rebuttal/ defense... which does not allow for a waived round. Just following the guidelines, cupcake. Being that is the standard, in your debate challenge, my argument would be a kritik. Sorry, not interested.
Nice try, but you set up your debate with a waiver before knowing who your opponent would be, so stop trying to say any different, now. As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word, whether you are Pro or Con.So, do the prep work necessary for that role and debate even if your opponent forfeits. That's just the risk you take. I still maintain that waiving is a coward's way.
vote bump
Vote bump
Con R3 references:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#CausPrinQuanPhys
2 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
3 https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm
4 https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm
5 https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/line.html
6 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/
7 Isaac Newton, Opticks, 4th ed. (London: William Innys, 1730), pg. 344; spelling and punctuation modernized.
8 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#CausPrinQuanPhys
9 https://biblehub.com/strongs/genesis/1-1.htm
10 Isaac Newton, Opticks, 4th ed. (London: William Innys, 1730), pg. 344; spelling and punctuation modernized.
11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejKUJu9xct4
Thank you for accepting this debate. I trust this will be a more pleasant experience than my other opponent.
Have mitt, will catch.
Thanks for proposing this debate. I look forward to a good exchange of ideas. Good luck
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
Voters, please vote.
Thank you, Duel, for accepting this debate. I will be posting my first argument by tomorrow.
You may attempt that topical migration from what the topic statement and description specify, but voters may not buy it, and, now having accepted the debate as is, without your migration to include all animals as made in your comment post #3, I certainly do not and will argue against it as being outside the scope of the topic statement since that statement specifies human, only.
I make the same assumption as RationalMadman; this is a truism. what other Earth lifer form would assume responsibility for human population? Aardvarks?
Also, it appears there is couched argument that Earth is presently overpopulated. Will Pro assume BoP of the claim, or is that expected to be a truism, as well?
So we begin! Thank you, Intelligence_06, for accepting the debate. I look forward to our contest. Good lock!
Not just makes more sense, but is, in fact, the better explanation of the philosophy of our motivations of thought and action.
Thanks for your commentary. I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present. I present my BoP. Perhaps I ought to remove a suggestede BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open aeason.
I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers." I have composed a number of essays on the subject at various times in my life, but had not really thought of it when developing this challenge, but is definitely related.Not so familiar with Schiller.
As a potential voter, it would be disingenuous to elaborate. Have your debate; I'll comment, further, then.
Hey, you're not debating me. But remember you are saying it is specific to general knowledge, so, just how detailed are generalities? Don't bother answering; like I said, this isn't about or by me; I'm a bystander blowing smoke in the wind.