Depends what fan means. If I was hardcore fan irl I wouldn't identify myself here as that and it depends what fan means.
I don't think you realise it is actually hard to watch/see the series anymore outside US and I have gradually weaned myself off of anything like Netflix. This Lent I cut down on it.
I knew early on when I saw it that it didn't add up that Neo was the hero. The biggest reason I knew this is the machines could see him the entire time. There is no possible way Morpheus and Trinity were accidentally getting 'lucky' every single time or outhacking an entire simulated reality itself that they themselves somehow supposedly escaped.
I was a very highly intelligent guy (IQ is irrelevant, my intelligence is higher than that if we mean philosophically) and watched it young but I originally thought it was a test. As in, if he picked Red, they'd keep testing him until he caved in and begged for blue again. That didn't pan out obviously.
I didn't like Agent Smith at first but I realised the other Agents were actually worse than Smith for achieving the goals Morpheus had if you thought about it harder.
Sources: Pro used several to back up Buddhist principles and concepts even apparently showing deities of Buddhism (I will approach blank slate and validate this) while casting doubt on Shroud of Turin's validity.
Con used literally zero sources.
Conduct: Con degrades Buddhists as plagiarists, nihilists and then attacks Pro personally in the final Round. If this were pro debating he'd be docked conduct marks (plural). Pro's several new points in Round 3 are poor conduct also.
Where it tips over the edge to me giving Pro conduct is Con adds a degrading word 'sh**hole' in Round 3, to all Buddhist regions. That is over the line for formal debating.
"offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life, and the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering, and my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism."
He asserts 2-pronged Burden of Proof that both sides share equally:
"Prove their religion leads to a more fulfilling life.
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable."
Con decides to go full blast and assert as case against ALL non-Christian religions as follows:
"Every religion other than Christianity is either atheist, has hypocrite gods who claim to be benevolent while they watch humans suffer, or has gods that admit they don't care about us. The Christian God makes us suffer sure, but he actually came down and suffered FOR US unlike any other God. The Christian God in doing so proved that he has unconditional, self-sacrificial love and that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of human suffering."
This can be taken as Con believing in a different burden of proof(BoP).
It would seem in Con's perspective, the burden of Con is to prove that Christianity is the sole religion that has gods that are neither atheist (doesn't even say atheistic, increasing what he has to prove) nor hypocritical (here 'hypocrite' had to be a typo/error) as well as that the value system in Christianity matches very much how the God acts.
In fact it seems to be the case that Con wants the debate about the gods of the religions specifically.
During what proceeds, the clash in both sides' views of BoP is essentially why neither seems to understand the case the other is making and debates as if their opponent is either deceptive or deluded. Con's Round 3 is blatantly stating that he sees Pro as a deceiver. Pro's Round 3 does similar but masks the wording. Pro adds many new points in Round 3 which I disregard all of in my vote as my voting ethics are that closing Rounds are for rebuttals and reinforcement only.
It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. The issue for Con is the debate isn't specific on which Christian sect is being debated against. Therefore when Pro rebukes about Hitler potentially being in Heaven if he repents and prays last minute, he is correct and even without sola fide, I know for a fact Christians are banned to declare with firm assurance about who went to Hell (judge not lest ye be judged etc). This seems to be Pro's point sort of. I do not claim Pro states the ban on humans judging humans to Hell, he instead proves something huge against Con; that the Christian God has only based its morality on faith and dedication to it rather than whatever system Con said that dooms Hitler to Hell.
I am confused at what Con exactly assumed the BoP was as the debate progresses. He seems to go from starting bold with saying all non-Christians gods are atheist or hypocrites to saying Buddhism is nihilistic plagiarism and that it has no god.
Pro sticks to his 2-pronged BoP but in my opinion he barely succeeds. For example Pro doesn't prove that Buddhists have more fulfilling lives than Christians anywhere in the debate as far as I see. This is also completely failed by Con to be denied as a valid BoP.
Where it seems the real debate lies then is in the 2nd part Pro offers:
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable.
There seems to be some sort of brain chemistry logic from Pro. I disregard brand new Round 3 points, I refer to Round 2. In Round 2, Pro says people are wired to feel karma so to speak. Meanwhile I don’t see where Con gives evidence of the reward system of Christianity being proven. He is more eager to prove that Jesus was real. Jesus being real does not exactly prove Christianity correct. Pro didn’t even deny it.
Furthermore, it appears that Con concedes that meditation does actually work. He even says Christianity permits Buddhist meditation. That needs FAR MORE elaboration then to explain how that isn’t a wrong religion caving in to a truer one, incorporating an irrefutable benefit.
As for Eucharistic miracles, we are at a loss. Con insists labwork backs him up and gives 0 while Pro says it is a bluff in essence and Con fails to source or back up which lab work when proved it.
You mean Round 2 when your opponent had no way to reply. I read Round 1 and saw direct harms. Your opponent clearly meant that and didn't get a chance to clarify it. Also, your opponent didn't get to xlarify if indirect harms may be what he presumes you meant as well.
😂 wow I actually didnt think this through. In-your-face Christian would have been optimal over anything else because I could flesh out description and keep them decent sounding enough
If he had made being Christian just a qualifier I feel I would win.
Make the debate and state me alone as opponent. Leave an entire week to debate it and word it exactly the same as it is worded now.
I will show you an antiChristian angle and play devil's advocate to prove a different way to prove this wrong than you would assume while still being loyal to Christ.
Hello judge, please vote when you have time. 🙏
Please do notice the RO violations.
Lol
Delete my vote please so I can revote 6 points to Con.
I could have given 6 to Con but I figured I should just let the ridiculous description-rule on semantics be upheld.
Jesus as Messiah means it is complete. He will come again 2nd coming.
By your logic I should be a Jew not a Muslim.
He loves you
https://youtu.be/Hs4_T1mpa4Q?si=lISl70PzBRWVKgv2
Change topic, Allah vs Yhwh, please.
If you do this, I accept debate.
You are using a group? LOL
Bump
30k chars per Round?
Depends what fan means. If I was hardcore fan irl I wouldn't identify myself here as that and it depends what fan means.
I don't think you realise it is actually hard to watch/see the series anymore outside US and I have gradually weaned myself off of anything like Netflix. This Lent I cut down on it.
I knew early on when I saw it that it didn't add up that Neo was the hero. The biggest reason I knew this is the machines could see him the entire time. There is no possible way Morpheus and Trinity were accidentally getting 'lucky' every single time or outhacking an entire simulated reality itself that they themselves somehow supposedly escaped.
I was a very highly intelligent guy (IQ is irrelevant, my intelligence is higher than that if we mean philosophically) and watched it young but I originally thought it was a test. As in, if he picked Red, they'd keep testing him until he caved in and begged for blue again. That didn't pan out obviously.
I didn't like Agent Smith at first but I realised the other Agents were actually worse than Smith for achieving the goals Morpheus had if you thought about it harder.
I won't do this as a 2 day. I also think more chars are needed.
Why 2 days only?
There are reasons why it is best for me to wait at least a full week before voting on this.
Remind me later ty.
How do we separate inspiration from coincidental similarity?
Please can semantics be established in description?
https://youtu.be/ZsfKFBaWcyk?si=Z_eSV0dLNxKv4J7X
✌️🙏
Voting Justification (1/6)
Sources: Pro used several to back up Buddhist principles and concepts even apparently showing deities of Buddhism (I will approach blank slate and validate this) while casting doubt on Shroud of Turin's validity.
Con used literally zero sources.
Conduct: Con degrades Buddhists as plagiarists, nihilists and then attacks Pro personally in the final Round. If this were pro debating he'd be docked conduct marks (plural). Pro's several new points in Round 3 are poor conduct also.
Where it tips over the edge to me giving Pro conduct is Con adds a degrading word 'sh**hole' in Round 3, to all Buddhist regions. That is over the line for formal debating.
Voting Justification (2/6)
Pro presents a case based on 4 contentions.
"offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life, and the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering, and my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism."
He asserts 2-pronged Burden of Proof that both sides share equally:
"Prove their religion leads to a more fulfilling life.
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable."
Voting Justification (3/6)
Con decides to go full blast and assert as case against ALL non-Christian religions as follows:
"Every religion other than Christianity is either atheist, has hypocrite gods who claim to be benevolent while they watch humans suffer, or has gods that admit they don't care about us. The Christian God makes us suffer sure, but he actually came down and suffered FOR US unlike any other God. The Christian God in doing so proved that he has unconditional, self-sacrificial love and that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of human suffering."
This can be taken as Con believing in a different burden of proof(BoP).
It would seem in Con's perspective, the burden of Con is to prove that Christianity is the sole religion that has gods that are neither atheist (doesn't even say atheistic, increasing what he has to prove) nor hypocritical (here 'hypocrite' had to be a typo/error) as well as that the value system in Christianity matches very much how the God acts.
In fact it seems to be the case that Con wants the debate about the gods of the religions specifically.
Voting Justification (4/6)
During what proceeds, the clash in both sides' views of BoP is essentially why neither seems to understand the case the other is making and debates as if their opponent is either deceptive or deluded. Con's Round 3 is blatantly stating that he sees Pro as a deceiver. Pro's Round 3 does similar but masks the wording. Pro adds many new points in Round 3 which I disregard all of in my vote as my voting ethics are that closing Rounds are for rebuttals and reinforcement only.
It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. The issue for Con is the debate isn't specific on which Christian sect is being debated against. Therefore when Pro rebukes about Hitler potentially being in Heaven if he repents and prays last minute, he is correct and even without sola fide, I know for a fact Christians are banned to declare with firm assurance about who went to Hell (judge not lest ye be judged etc). This seems to be Pro's point sort of. I do not claim Pro states the ban on humans judging humans to Hell, he instead proves something huge against Con; that the Christian God has only based its morality on faith and dedication to it rather than whatever system Con said that dooms Hitler to Hell.
Voting Justification (5/6)
I am confused at what Con exactly assumed the BoP was as the debate progresses. He seems to go from starting bold with saying all non-Christians gods are atheist or hypocrites to saying Buddhism is nihilistic plagiarism and that it has no god.
Pro sticks to his 2-pronged BoP but in my opinion he barely succeeds. For example Pro doesn't prove that Buddhists have more fulfilling lives than Christians anywhere in the debate as far as I see. This is also completely failed by Con to be denied as a valid BoP.
Where it seems the real debate lies then is in the 2nd part Pro offers:
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable.
Voting Justification part (6/6)
There seems to be some sort of brain chemistry logic from Pro. I disregard brand new Round 3 points, I refer to Round 2. In Round 2, Pro says people are wired to feel karma so to speak. Meanwhile I don’t see where Con gives evidence of the reward system of Christianity being proven. He is more eager to prove that Jesus was real. Jesus being real does not exactly prove Christianity correct. Pro didn’t even deny it.
Furthermore, it appears that Con concedes that meditation does actually work. He even says Christianity permits Buddhist meditation. That needs FAR MORE elaboration then to explain how that isn’t a wrong religion caving in to a truer one, incorporating an irrefutable benefit.
As for Eucharistic miracles, we are at a loss. Con insists labwork backs him up and gives 0 while Pro says it is a bluff in essence and Con fails to source or back up which lab work when proved it.
Do you promise you wont FF?
I really want this to be a good debate.
Not true. It means I am drained to make brand new rebuttals instead of reinforcing my case. It also baits me into a blitzkrieg.
You didnt address a huge amount of what your opponent said in Round 1 btw.
You mean Round 2 when your opponent had no way to reply. I read Round 1 and saw direct harms. Your opponent clearly meant that and didn't get a chance to clarify it. Also, your opponent didn't get to xlarify if indirect harms may be what he presumes you meant as well.
Drake is half Jewish and as it is his Mother that is a Jew, Drake is actually considered a Jew and has had a Bar Mitzvah.
Please do not spread any antisemitism using him as your image or it is a severe disrespect to him. Agreed?
Why do you always debate unrated?
I appreciate the vote.
Ty for vote
Most voters wont allow what Pro did in Round 3 blitzKrieg so my rebuttal wouldnt be needed but I knew a voter might consider it so I replied.
✝️⛪🙏
Forgive me for my sloth sin here. I typed all Rounds on phone without autocorrect and this is a hobby.
Please St. Mary intercede so the Christ and Father alike forgive me for the spelling errors and laziness when representing the 1 true church.
Amen.
Is Mall gonna win this? LOL
Only 2 points rest on the song 4 rest on context and 1 on not messing up badly
So sacrificing great songs with vaguer context for good songs with blatant context is optimal.
😂 wow I actually didnt think this through. In-your-face Christian would have been optimal over anything else because I could flesh out description and keep them decent sounding enough
If he had made being Christian just a qualifier I feel I would win.
Ty for vote.
Delete my vote pls
His riri song is fake as in AI generated btw. She has been blatant Illuminati sellout for a long time.
It is not even from a real song. Search 'Rihanna dear g*d' they are all AI generated.
You are wrong about Catholicism but I won't say more than that statement for now or it helps Pro too much.
Your angle is wrong.
Rihanna and Akon as Islam duo
😂😂😂😂
Riri why...
Make the debate and state me alone as opponent. Leave an entire week to debate it and word it exactly the same as it is worded now.
I will show you an antiChristian angle and play devil's advocate to prove a different way to prove this wrong than you would assume while still being loyal to Christ.
True
It is likely you will vote against me but life is life. I am okay as also there is no choice.
I also wonder if you will give all 7 to the winner by default or follow the description.
In 3 days if 0 votes are here, what is the strategy to get votes?
Daredevil is better than Batman characterwise but moviewise Batman mogs.
🙏✝️✡️
I am busy irl, this isnt my area of expertise esp lately Ove tried to cleanse listening to all this type of music.
Lust is basically 65% or more of all modern day pop. This is not really a good contest for me. You easily can win it no question.
The Linkin Park is not fan played drums, it is their actual drummer. My mistake.