You may crave the final word, demand it even, but let's be clear: this communication breakdown? It's on you. All it would have taken to preserve any semblance of dignity was a simple agreement to disagree. But instead, you chose rudeness, disrespect. Perhaps nobody has had the courage to tell you this before, but you are not the center of the universe. When you act out, throwing tantrums and ignoring all wisdom and decency, you become something far worse than irrelevant. You become toxic, a presence people avoid, a voice they tune out. Respect is earned, and right now, you're deeply in debt.
"Kid, you are already fked in debate why eating my brain here, you have not seen my toxicity yet. It's better you stop your poop eating monkey brain. And get the fk out of here."
First, if your going to call other people children, it's probably best not to act like a child yourself. Don't worry, I know a lack of a diploma, common sense, or manners has reduced you to this point.
"You have done the debate why eating sh8t here?"
Not sure if what I said triggered you to this level of stupidly or your really that pathetic. In any case, would it kill you to actually try insulting with some class? Assuming you have any to begin with.
"Brain dead person asking me to give empirical evidence of dream while it's totally related to subjective and personal interpretation and none machine or tool or measure invented which can analyse the content of dream and then coorelate it with mere physical or spiritual phenomenon."
Thank you for so willingly demonstrating what a sentence made with zero brain cells or foresight looks like. A+ for you. In other related news, You do realize that my whole point from the beginning was that because its a subjective experience we literally can't analyze it and therefore can't prove it right? In other words, you have just agreed that nothing can confirm your story.
"Your brain was tard when you instigated this debate."
So....I create a debate on a debate website no less, and that makes me a "tard"? flawless logic. Btw, while were on the topic. I guess according to that logic, you are also a tard because you not only ACCEPTED said debate and gave a personal sob story on top of it. I mean, I personally don't have enough self loathing or lack of dignity and certainly have never lacked the intellect enough to insult myself with my own reasoning. But, hey, since you can't respect others why respect yourself right?
"Now you are fked up, so crying in comment section and you reached the point, where you choose the appealing to the audience/voters by Dropping arguments and appeal to emotion.
If you have done well, you would have not begged to voters and by passing me.
Pathetic"
By all means (assuming you actually know how) look up the definitions of "appealing" and "emotion" because clearly they don't work the way you think. At no point did I ever say to voters, "Vote me for me because I feel dreams have no divine nature" Or "My opponent said mean things to me. vote against him." You on the other hand made an EXTREMELY emotional personal story trying to sway people with claims of a mystic god saving your family from a disaster and how TERRIBLE it was for you to go through it.
Here is the reality: your an ignorant toxic troll who got mad because I gave educated and documented reasons for why Dreams are the result of physical phenomenon and brain stimulation. You have no argument beyond "But I believe in Allah!" And you know that simply isn't enough. Honestly, You must not care about your God all that much to be this much of a prick.
PS. I never dropped any arguments. I simply changed the form in which I delivered it.
The assertion that I requested physical evidence of a dream is inaccurate. My request was for empirical evidence demonstrating the divine origin of dream meanings, specifically in relation to the claim that Allah is the source of these dreams. The reliance on a personal anecdote as proof is a methodological error that undermines any claim to reasoned argumentation. Furthermore, even if the request had been for physical evidence of a dream, it's a point of common scientific knowledge that brain activity associated with dreams can be measured via electroencephalography.
Look, it's time to heed your own pathetic little advice and actually grow up. The fact that you're this emotionally stunted despite supposedly being a divine Messager is embarrassing.
Debates are not about conversations. To debate someone is to argue on the opposite side of a topic and present your arguments. The concept is straightforward, making the assertion that learning to debate required a conversation appear illogical.
That's not how effective debates function. The purpose of a debate is to present well-reasoned arguments and allow the audience or participants to evaluate which position is most compelling. Instead, you presented arguments that seemed underdeveloped and then became emotionally invested in them. It's not my responsibility if your approach to the discussion hinders your ability to learn from the exchange.
"You right away discarded my stance which was religion, when you discuss spiritual matters, they automatically belongs to religion. Yet you right away said "They also relied primarily on their own subjective experiences and religious interpretations as opposed to facts, evidence, or anything academic""
Spirituality and religion represent different approaches to meaning, purpose, and connection. In a structured debate, the Con's responsibility is to present a counter-argument. This is not a personal attack, it's the framework of the discussion. If that fundamental dynamic is interpreted as disrespect, it might be worthwhile to reconsider your involvement in formal debate.
Whether consciously or not, your argument rested on the shifting sands of subjective experience and religious interpretation. You presented an anecdote unique to yourself, followed by an assertion of divine intervention—neither of which lends itself to empirical scrutiny. Therefore, my earlier statement remains demonstrably factual, despite your apparent surprise
"You said you would believe something come out of empirical analysis.
And so on,
Probably you are a kid, you do not know what you are saying and what that means."
My position was crystal clear: I require concrete, physical evidence – and yes, that encompasses empirical analysis – before accepting a claim as true. It's deeply ironic that you, who clearly doesn't grasp the meaning of 'irrelevant' as evidenced by your arbitrary deletion of half my points simply because you lack a counterargument, would resort to condescendingly calling me a 'kid' and implying I'm ignorant of fundamental concepts. Perhaps, before you throw around such childish insults, you should familiarize yourself with basic vocabulary and address the actual content of what I'm saying, instead of resorting to censorship. It's a sad display of intellectual laziness.
"My response was according to your response and also adequate.
Do not cry bro."
Seriously? 'Don't cry bro' is the pinnacle of your response? You're the one who resorted to deleting my points, then hypocritically addressing them, and finally launching personal attacks based on my atheism – an issue I never even raised. If anyone's 'crying' here, it's the insecure, religious zealot who crumbles into petty insults the moment their cherished narrative is questioned.
If this is how Allah's 'ambassadors' behave, then either you're utterly incompetent, or your deity has exceptionally poor taste in followers.
Frankly, your repeated disrespect has rendered my attempts to engage with you futile. The accusations of intellectual dishonesty, the mischaracterization of my statements, and the attacks on my character based on my atheism, along with an apparent religious bias, signal a complete disregard for constructive engagement, leading me to disengage entirely.
Respect is reciprocal – a fact you ignored. You accused me of emotional reasoning, while presenting your anecdote as evidence. Declaring yourself 'Ambassador of Islam' confirms that your engagements were always driven by bias and emotions more than mine are.
I adhered to the debate; you were the one who introduced personal narratives and religious dogma. You need to either take your own advice or avoid hypocritical criticism in the first place.
Your 'lazy' label is as baseless as all other biased positions and does not change that facts of videos always needing way more time than just a written format. So respond however you like – with a detailed response, a video like mine, or not at all. None of that is any longer a matter of my interests. Any level or action you want or think you must produce is entirely at your liberty.
I completely understand and I am fully happy to explain further as you asked.
" I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?"
So, here is the problem with that argument. Regardless if you think the Holy spirt is a real and a being incapable of error. The fact is that this being is not the one leading the catholic church. It is human beings teaching other human beings. So, that would still make the Catholic churches fallible even if the Christian God promised to guide their decisions. In fact, that argument kind of works against itself when you think about it. it goes back to my original point that if the teaching is indeed infallible, then its incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrong doing.
The fact that members of a an organization that commit errors despite being given teachings from a being promising not to allow it from the start just makes no sense. See, there is a good rule in philosophy called the law of none-contradiction. Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. For instance, if the catholic church is infallible, then it cannot be capable of error. If you say it can in some context (such as members) but not in others (such as teachings) Then that is in violation of such law.
"Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself."
Yes, it still applies. two things cannot be true if they are indirect conflict of each other. To declare an entire organization of any kind infallible requires everything related to it to fit that same standard. To admit to even isolated cases of error is to work against your own argument. Now, if this debate had been about a specific moral teaching of the catholic church and your position was to argue how that moral teaching cannot be proven wrong, I could see some leeway. However, we are talking about an entire church. Not the moral teachings themselves.
"Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters?"
Yes, because we're about the Catholic Church as a whole. Not simply ideologies. You may have meant the debate to be focused on the infallibly of the Catholic church ideologies In which case, the debate have have been something along the lines of "The catholic church teachings are infallible." Unfortunately, the claim was the entire church, which means EVERYTHING about the church must be examined and proved on your end that is without error.
The debate essentially became a case where Pro argued that the church was incapable of error because God or Jesus promised to keep is safe from error. Con replied back that their are contradictory teachings and other issues that cast doubt on that claim. You conceded to this point, but tried to argue back that it only applied when it came to the members and not the teachings itself. For me that is when you are trying to play a game of semantics and that doesn't work as an argument. So, I found Con's argument stronger overall.
Hello, it has been a while. Your debate rules might state that the bible is divinely inspired and therefore its contents taken as true in the context of the debate. However, that doesn't establish the claim that the principle of divine protection means the church is protected from error. In order to argue that something is infallible, you have to establish that its logic and reasoning cannot be challenged. Key example of this would be the statement: Socrates was Greek, all Greeks are mortal, therefore Socrates was a moral Greek. The statement is infallible because it's supported by both logic and fact.
Your claim about the Catholic church works the same way. If it cannot be established that the church is in fact protected by some divine force that prohibits it from making mistakes, which you did not establish, only claimed, then you cannot effectively argue that the Catholic Church is free from error.
"You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members"
Yes, you may have tried to argue that the infallibility applied only to the teaching of faith and morals. However, that argument is a contradiction. As I explained in my reasoning, you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive. That's like saying history is completely infallible and then when a student finds wrong or conflicting information from the curriculum you say its the teacher and not the material in the wrong. The fallacy in such an argument is very obvious. If the teaching is true and error free, then the teacher themselves are irrelevant in the context of infallibility within the context of the teaching.
" Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide"
This is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. The title of the debate claims that the Catholic Church is infallible. You, as pro, must demonstrate that the Catholic Church (which include its members and teachings a like) are therefore incapable of error. You cannot enter the debate supporting the idea that the catholic church 's assertion of infallibility is true, and then try to claim it is only half true or dependent on the context. The same would be true if the title said "Human history is infallible" and I, the pro then argued that only the teachings of human history is infallible, not the historians in charge of teaching it. That's simply not how reality works. If something is infallible then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No excerptions.
I hope that clarified my position. You guys had an awesome debate regardless. keep up the good work!
I must say that I am currently disappointed in this debate. Both sides seem to be lacking when it comes to making an effective argument. Pro disappoints me because they are trying to argue that access to abortion is a fundamental human right, yet they provide no legal sources proving that this is a truthful statement, nor do they explain why we should, on a legal basis, even theorize that possibility. Con also disappoints me because, even though they are supposed to be opposed to the idea of abortion services being a fundamental human right, they are instead weakening their position by stating they actually agree with women having the right to abortion, which is not the role they should be playing in this debate.
>That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
Thats the thing though, Pro never proved it was probable from a natural point of view. in fact, they conceded that it could not happen naturally. Hence why they invoked the name of God and claimed God was the reason it happened due to the events being Supernatural in nature. Plus, supernation events cannot be proven, so that would work against Pro, not for them.
I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point.
Obviously since this world is determined by physics then something being physically impossible is the prefect argument for why something wasn't possible. I also disagree with you claim that I did not dispute supernatural events because I actually did.
If you note in the debate, I kept drawing a contrast between theology and academia. I even specifically mention that supernatural events cannot be considered historical because like science, history only deals in the natural phenomenon. Not supernatural, and since Jesus' resurrection is a supernatural event, it cannot be claimed to be historically proven.
That is literally me disputing the existence of supernatural events. Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it.
And if my argument could have been viewed in the manner I indeed, which was that the bible isn't considered a historical book outside of religion, The Apostles claimed experience is hearsay, Jesus was a human and the physical and thus impossible to revive after three days (a point that couldn't be refuted), and that theology based evidence of supernatural events cannot be conflicted with actual academia or history.
Instead, people choose to ignore these points for some reason and claim I made no effective argument, and for some reason tried to argue that "proof" and "probability" were somehow different, which made no sense to me. But I do get it, everyone's view is different. And I respect every voters' decision at the end of the day. Thank you for voting.
I see where the confusion happened. The nazi comparison had nothing to do with the existence of Adolf Hiler. The comparison was between a nazi soldier fully believing that Adolf Hitler was a person trying to make Germany a great nation and the apostle's belief that Jesus was in fact resurrected. Not about Hitler or Hitler's existence. The comparison was purely about believing in what they thought even if what they thought was not correct. That tied into my argument that my Apostles may not have been lying but may not have been correct in their belief either. So, you misunderstood that part.
\
The basis of my argument was the claim by Pro that the Apostles' conviction and readiness to die for their beliefs served as proof of the resurrection's occurrence. My rebuttal centered on the notion that one's firm belief in something and willingness to die for it does not necessarily mean it is true, thereby making conviction alone an insufficient validation of truth.
Its not an issue, I just felt that your reasoning was based on misunderstandings on the arguments I put forth IE focusing on hallucinations and claims that I did not argue against the Disciples testimony. And when you agreed that you didn't necessarily give more consideration, my suggestion was just to reevaluate your vote and then give it better and more accurate reasoning.
I do not see why You would think that it would cause people to accuse of rigging or undue influence. But if that is a major concern, then the vote can stay where it is and I will follow your suggestion. It was not to try and sway your vote, but to get a more accurate reasoning.
Right, and that's why I said you misunderstood me. The hallucinations were just part of me disputing Pro's attempts at saying even atheist scholars like Gerd agreed that the disciples saw Jesus come back from the dead when he stated the opposite. The main focus of the debate was about the probability of Jesus coming back from the dead. And my position held three main points. The medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead (which you got right) The inability to verify the claims of the disciples. (Hence the historical reference comparison and psychological sources.) And that the resurrection of Jesus is a supernatural event rather than a historical event. (which is why I brought sources that show the definitional difference between history and theology as well as the difference between a historical event and a supernatural event). Now, that we have that covered. Could you please consider recasting your vote to properly reflect my position and confirm the final determination of your stance?
The only issue I take with your vote is that you say that I never dispute the disciple's experience with Jesus. However, I did argue against it by pointing out that eyewitness testimony is hearsay. I also go into great detail about the ability of a group of people to die for their beliefs even if that belief is false or not proven. I even provided a link to that effect. I am also confused about your point about hallucinations. You say I never address the hallucination counter. However, the only reason hallucinations were mentioned at all was because I pointed out that Pro's claim that a renowned atheist scholar named Gerd Ludemann said that the apostles saw the resurrection is not true since Gerd had taken the position that they experienced a hallucination.
So, I didn't respond to Pro's hallucination counter for two reasons. One because the hallucinations point was one, I brought up and it was used to counter their claims about Gerd and not if they actually experienced one or not. And two Pro never addressed my point about Gerd nor provided any counter-source to that point.
Just letting you know because I think you misunderstood some of my arguments.
My apologies for the round, I have been back in school recently and I was told by the system that I had at least a day left, clearly the system lied to me.
Just to let you know, I will make a video response to your arguments as I found that doing this helps make my arguments more concise and easier to write.
It was a fun debate, nevertheless. However I wish we had not gone into so many different ways about it so that the arguments did not get so monstrous to read.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. To be honest, I assumed it might have been just me stunning you with my excellent arguments. lol. I would recommend using Clip Champ if you are running a windows 11. It has a built-in AI text-to-speech that would allow you to say whatever you want through text. The AI voice as you can tell from my video is crystal clear and all of it is completely free.
" Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me."
See this as a clear example of why you should be open to criticism and see that your logic can indeed be flawed from time to time. You say that you felt I called you stupid with my response, but did my response call you stupid? No, all I said was that you should have put that reasoning in writing when casting your vote and I asked you a question based on it. that is not an implication of calling you stupid. that is simply communication.
Furthermore, at any time, you could have expressed that you felt offended by what I said, and explained why, and I could have easily explained as I am doing now why it is not offensive. In contrast, you intentionally called me retarded and tried to argue that it wasn't an insult when it was. Now, you try to say that you did so because I somehow offended you by making you feel that I was calling you stupid despite never having done so or so much having implied. That is called being illogical and irrational.
So, I will end my comment by saying that while I can understand that your actions may have been driven by childhood trauma triggers that caused you to act irrationally and that you may have somehow felt offended over what I said based on an illogical framework that may or may not be the result of your underline disabilities. I still recommend that you reevaluate your approach. You seem to have misconstrued disrespectful conduct and insulting language to be on the same level as helpful criticism when its fact there are clear differences. You seem to indicate that merely questioning your reasoning or expressing disagreement is enough for you to think other people are calling you stupid when that is not the case.
You should be respectful to people, especially if you disagree with them if they have not done anything to harm or attack you. You should take your background of having disabilities as a valuable lesson as to why you should show compassion and understanding to people with other disabilities instead of belittlement. And lastly, you should also not expect people to understand you, or you're reasoning regardless of your disabilities or lack thereof. No one can truly understand another unless they question and critique them. That's how communication works. And above all, do not presume that someone doesn't agree is because they are calling you stupid or lack compensation. There is an infinite school of thought in every situation.
"Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood."
See, now I am truly lost, because whether you realize it or not, others including myself have grown up with disabilities and been misunderstood as well. So, you more than most should be able to see what is wrong with mocking others or insulting them. Especially if it's over a perceived disadvantage that you think the other person might have. But you did the opposite of that. Also, for your information, many of those who suffer from ASD have speech issues that can make communication difficult. Some cases have it to where they never learn to speak at all. So, in the end, I get the frustration you are expressing. But it doesn't excuse anything. If anything, such experiences should have taught you the value of respect and getting to know someone before rendering judgment.
"Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me."
Now, I never got the help I needed growing up because I was born in 97 and there was very little help for my disability when growing up. So, again, I completely understand where you are coming from. However, what you have to understand is two things. One, while I may have said what you said made no sense, I never implied it was that you were stupid. Merely disagreeing with you is not an implication that you lack intellect. And two, you should be open to the possibility that your logic is indeed flawed. That's what a critical thinker is supposed to do. No one's logic is completely flawless, and it wouldn't matter if it was as that still would not mean what they say is right.
I had no issue for example with you saying that you found my argument unconvincing. I would have accepted that without issue. But when you implied that you were not convinced by the Cons argument, you found at least some persuasion in mine. I took that as you voting outside the criteria, which is based on better arguments. And when we devolved in deeper you seemed to have contradicted itself more the more, so I kept arguing back to get you to see my point.
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect."
Wow, way to show your lack of research, Decorum by definition means to be socially calm, correct, and polite. lying means to say something completely untrue for the specific purpose of deceiving others. Which is actually in contrast to what decorum means.
"You forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up."
Firstly, I did not forfeit after "seeing your argument." I told you very clear and plainly that I was not interested in debating you because you insulted my IQ in your video. at no point did I say, "I won't debate you because your video was hard to argue against. It is not my fault that you cannot listen to the writing on your screen. Which, you lied about btw. as you tried to say you only briefly mocked me and moved on, but you actually spent 7 minutes insulting me out of the 28 minutes of video. You also can't claim to give respect to people you also call shit. Sorry, but that's again called being toxic.
"If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve."
Please explain to me how my saying: "Do not disrespect me, and I will be glad to hear what you have to say," somehow translated to, "Kiss my ass before critiquing me"? This is honestly making me concerned. Every time I try to give a very simple logical answer. Such as Don't insult me + show respect = I will listen to what you have to say. You turn it to some form of illogical argument of Dominance or try to say being a bully is somehow helpful. You can't justify your toxic behavior with illogical arguments.
"I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off."
First of all, I never disrespected you before you insulted me. The worst I said to you before you insulted me by calling me mentally handicaped was that you were double-talking and that you did not vote by the Criteria. That is not disrespectful nor is it a lack of understanding. That is called DISAGREEMENT. See, you say failure to understand you piss you off for any reason. You think I misunderstood you, which is subjective btw, and that doesn't justify attacking my character, which is something I did not do to you initially. Thats disrespect. me saying that I do not understand your reasoning or pointing out why it doesn't make sense from my perspective is called constructive criticism. As I critiqued what you said without making it personal. You did not do the same.
"well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either."
I never misrepresented you. I addressed everything you said as you said it in the comment's and when you contradicted yourself as I continue to demonstrate even now, you kept on arguing and eventually insulted me.
"Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues."
It's less about what you think and more of the fact you tried to defame my character. As I said before, when you treat people as if they are stupid just because they do not agree with you, you lose respect and any hopeful critique you want to give will be ignored even if it was helpful. This is the part that I am trying to get you to understand. You cannot disrespectfully treat people, and then a second later be like: Oh, but I want to be helpful. That is called being toxic and no one listens to that. And again, you prove my point.
You made assumptions about me without actually knowing me. And even now as I try to get you do understand why the way you went about this was insensitive and wrong, you fail to COMPREHEND that just because I have a different perspective on this matter, doesn't indicate I lack intelligence. As much as I hate religion as an atheist, you would do well to remember this wise saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
"I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high."
First of all, you do not know if you have autism or not until you have been psychologically evaluated. Secondly, OCPD is not the same as Autism. Autism is a neurological developmental disability that has an actual Spectrum of classifications which is why is categorized as ASD. OCPD is an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It involves having unwanted thoughts that can be obsessive. Although they may both be disabilities. They are not similar in any manner. lastly, who are you to tell who has high IQ or not? What PDHD or college that you graduated from do you base that authority on? I suspect none personally. So, maybe it's not that your standards are too high, but rather you simply never learned to be respectful as a person.
"The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out."
And, as I explained before, had they made sense to me they would have. But that is where the disconnection came. You said I "dropped" my legal arguments early on and did not focus on them. Yet, the first round of my argument solidified my Connotational stance and understanding, and as I have just shown you, I never stopped referencing law and the Constitution throughout my rounds. I also think this might be part of the problem I mentioned earlier. You think that just because your reasoning made sense to you, it should make sense to everyone, but that's not reality. Had you attempted to understand why I could see things differently, we could have worked to find mutual understanding. Instead, you just kept defending your position with more and more irrational rhetoric that I constantly showed was double talk and when I wouldn't relent you went on offensive mode.
"I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds."
See, that's the whole thing, you call it a "red herring," but no one but you understand what you mean by that. It's also false to say that I did not stick with the Supreme Court argument. What happened is that Con claimed in the first round that Abortion was a long-time accepted tradition that had been legal for 250 years. I countered that by providing a source that showed anti-abortion laws since the 1820s. I also pointed out Con's contradiction in saying that abortion is both a long-time tradition but also that anti-abortionists held the power during that same time.
"That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counterarguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises."
Again, that makes no sense. First, your idea of "dropping" an argument seems to be based on the idea that I, "didn't stick with the argument" but that is false as I brought up the Supreme Court multiple times throughout the debate. in Round 1: I provided a source that showed Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I also provided a link to the 9th Amendment that showed that people could not use the 9th Amendment to say abortion was a right undefined by the US Constitution. The basis of the first round can be summed up by me saying that Roe V. Wade. was overturned. The Constitution does not mention Abortion, and the 9th Amendment cannot be used to say that it does. So, I by no means "dropped the argument.
The Second round had me provide several rebuttals including countering Cons' claim that abortion was legal for 250 years with a source that proved abortion had been made illegal throughout several periods that Con said it was legal. Also countered Con's claim about the 10th Amendment and provided several sources that proved the legal difference between the 13th Amendment, the definition of slavery itself, and abortion. And I countered Con's false claim that women can be locked up for live as abortion was a felony by providing serval sources that showed it was only in Texas, and not as a standard rule.
The third round saw me use the 19th, and 14th, as well as the 13th Amendment to counter claims made by Con and affirm that they do not prove Abortion is not a constitutional right. And me and Con had our disagreements over case law, where he said that it was unconstitutional for Supreme Court to rule Abortion as not a right based on case law and I said that any thing not in the Constitution yet still claimed to be a right is decided in case law and thus constitutional.
And I can keep going but the point is that contrary to the narrative you try to create, I never "dropped" any argument. Now, did other areas get mentioned outside of the law? Yes, because Con was making claims such as the Supreme Court being run by cultists and that women had no rights.
As far as rebuttals go, I do not get your point about that either because you keep saying that I either did not addressee his arguments, or I did, but the rebuttals failed to address what Con said, which you also tell me were irrelevant anyways and that I should have agreed to them anyway. See what happens when you not only double-talk but triple-talk? It gets very confusing.
In any case, it's not true anyway because there are several times where he made claims such as abortions not being illegal for 250 years and I responded with a Source that countered what he said. That is by definition a rebuttal. And if you cannot see that as addressing Con's argument, then we are living in two separate concepts of reality.
Listen, man, I told you a long time ago that I am a serious person. I do not tolerate any trolling or disrespect. Now, You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve. However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice. You may not see it that way, but that doesn't change that is how it is taken.
For example, the reason our conversation got so heated wasn't that I could not take criticism. It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me and seemed to go against the role of voting. When I tried to explain that to you, rather than see things from my point of view, as I tried to understand yours. You simply argued inconsistently, made several claims that I refuted, and even made accusations such as I "dropped promising legal arguments" and you even went so far as to misquote me on my argument about Con's comparison to pregnancy being slavery.
Had you instead said something along the lines of, "Well, I did not like either pro or cons argument and, here is why," and then provided actual examples for what you said, I would have been perfectly fine with it. Instead, you said, "Con made a stupid and wrong argument but I gave them the vote because Pro dropped several promising legal arguments and chased irrelevant red herrings." Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement.
Now, you did make a video explaining your vote, and the mods did permit it. However, My issue was not based on anything you said in the video. My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on.
True helpful criticism would have been something along these lines:
"I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them."
Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site. On the site, you used disrespectful language, calling both of mine and Con's argument shit, that you spit on both of us and that you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. This is not helpful criticism. That is called being toxic.
Now, where you have been a bully is not only in the fact that you called me names and called me retarded, but you also went so far as to talk to me about my autism and what level on the spectrum I am in. Now, you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular.
And I think the part of all this the most is that you do not understand that when you have offended someone, regardless of whether you understand why the other person is offended by what you said, and regardless of if you believe it is offensive, you are supposed to respect the offended person's view on the matter and stop. You did not do so. You CONTINUED to do it even after I told you to stop, and others told you to stop as well. And since then, you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you.
No one would want to take advice from someone who acts like that. That's just basic common sense. And I will be honest with you, the whole reason I unblocked you was because after I saw you make videos on the site, I thought, "Huh, maybe I misjudged that person, " because you came across to me as a thoughtful person when on video and not a jerk as I took you for when I first met you. Now, your actions and subsequent actions have once again soured my view of you. You make great videos but are simply not respectful as a person.
The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect. That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect. And especially do not try to act as if you know a person's actual disabilities more than they do, if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements. However, if your response is to say, "No, I am going to just be insulting and not care how other people feel," then be prepared to be ignored. No one has to take shit from you just because you feel entitled to belittle them.
"you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate"
Thank you for once again admitting that you are actively trying to insult my IQ, which you have told not to do and yet continue to do. The mods will surely appreciate that when they investigate the matter. Just as I appreciate being able to report it.
Also, a flaw in your logic, if I KNEW I was going to forfeit, I would never have accepted the debate, and I would have not said anything afterward. It was only AFTER I watched your video response, which was supposed to be about this topic, that I said to myself, "This guy is bringing up an unrelated argument to mock my IQ level again. There's no point in debating with a rule breaker." You even encourage other people to watch my other debates to conclude that I have low intelligence. You do not want to debate; you want to bully, and I am damn sure going to let the mods know that when you make it obvious.
I may have accepted the debate, but I had no way of knowing that you were going to accuse me of having Low intellect. AGAIN. After AGREEING to stop doing so. You were told to Stop MANY times before this and told that making assumptions about other people's IQ is against the COC. I am not going to get banned for reporting you for something you KNOW and were TOLD to not do. Unlike you, I do not violate the rules.
I will not be debating with you at all. I have just watched your first YouTube, "Argument" for this debate, and I have found you to still be violating the rules of this site. You were told MANY times to not insult anyone's IQ on this website and the MODs have told you these many times. You continue to ignore them by making IQ conditions in the rules and immediately stating my IQ level is 120 by demanding the vote of conduct vote based on what you think my is IQ level in your video. I have informed White Flower of your latest violation. I will not debate with someone who breaks the COC on this site. Good day.
To be fair, Jesus is acknowledged both historically and biblically as a real figure who died on the cross. Therefore, most people do not believe he was non-existent. However, there is a distinction between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus, as they are not considered the same entity. Bible Jesus is the one described as the son of God, died for our sins, etc. History Jesus is just a man who lived in Palestine, opposed Roman Rule, gained a following, gave moral teachings, and was eventually executed under suspicion of planning to overthrow Roman rule.
One could argue that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was not crucified as he represents a fictionalized version of the actual Jesus, whose divine paternity cannot be substantiated. But your topic is just about Jesus being crucified in general, which is undisputed.
You may crave the final word, demand it even, but let's be clear: this communication breakdown? It's on you. All it would have taken to preserve any semblance of dignity was a simple agreement to disagree. But instead, you chose rudeness, disrespect. Perhaps nobody has had the courage to tell you this before, but you are not the center of the universe. When you act out, throwing tantrums and ignoring all wisdom and decency, you become something far worse than irrelevant. You become toxic, a presence people avoid, a voice they tune out. Respect is earned, and right now, you're deeply in debt.
"Kid, you are already fked in debate why eating my brain here, you have not seen my toxicity yet. It's better you stop your poop eating monkey brain. And get the fk out of here."
First, if your going to call other people children, it's probably best not to act like a child yourself. Don't worry, I know a lack of a diploma, common sense, or manners has reduced you to this point.
"You have done the debate why eating sh8t here?"
Not sure if what I said triggered you to this level of stupidly or your really that pathetic. In any case, would it kill you to actually try insulting with some class? Assuming you have any to begin with.
"Brain dead person asking me to give empirical evidence of dream while it's totally related to subjective and personal interpretation and none machine or tool or measure invented which can analyse the content of dream and then coorelate it with mere physical or spiritual phenomenon."
Thank you for so willingly demonstrating what a sentence made with zero brain cells or foresight looks like. A+ for you. In other related news, You do realize that my whole point from the beginning was that because its a subjective experience we literally can't analyze it and therefore can't prove it right? In other words, you have just agreed that nothing can confirm your story.
"Your brain was tard when you instigated this debate."
So....I create a debate on a debate website no less, and that makes me a "tard"? flawless logic. Btw, while were on the topic. I guess according to that logic, you are also a tard because you not only ACCEPTED said debate and gave a personal sob story on top of it. I mean, I personally don't have enough self loathing or lack of dignity and certainly have never lacked the intellect enough to insult myself with my own reasoning. But, hey, since you can't respect others why respect yourself right?
"Now you are fked up, so crying in comment section and you reached the point, where you choose the appealing to the audience/voters by Dropping arguments and appeal to emotion.
If you have done well, you would have not begged to voters and by passing me.
Pathetic"
By all means (assuming you actually know how) look up the definitions of "appealing" and "emotion" because clearly they don't work the way you think. At no point did I ever say to voters, "Vote me for me because I feel dreams have no divine nature" Or "My opponent said mean things to me. vote against him." You on the other hand made an EXTREMELY emotional personal story trying to sway people with claims of a mystic god saving your family from a disaster and how TERRIBLE it was for you to go through it.
Here is the reality: your an ignorant toxic troll who got mad because I gave educated and documented reasons for why Dreams are the result of physical phenomenon and brain stimulation. You have no argument beyond "But I believe in Allah!" And you know that simply isn't enough. Honestly, You must not care about your God all that much to be this much of a prick.
PS. I never dropped any arguments. I simply changed the form in which I delivered it.
The assertion that I requested physical evidence of a dream is inaccurate. My request was for empirical evidence demonstrating the divine origin of dream meanings, specifically in relation to the claim that Allah is the source of these dreams. The reliance on a personal anecdote as proof is a methodological error that undermines any claim to reasoned argumentation. Furthermore, even if the request had been for physical evidence of a dream, it's a point of common scientific knowledge that brain activity associated with dreams can be measured via electroencephalography.
Look, it's time to heed your own pathetic little advice and actually grow up. The fact that you're this emotionally stunted despite supposedly being a divine Messager is embarrassing.
Debates are not about conversations. To debate someone is to argue on the opposite side of a topic and present your arguments. The concept is straightforward, making the assertion that learning to debate required a conversation appear illogical.
That's not how effective debates function. The purpose of a debate is to present well-reasoned arguments and allow the audience or participants to evaluate which position is most compelling. Instead, you presented arguments that seemed underdeveloped and then became emotionally invested in them. It's not my responsibility if your approach to the discussion hinders your ability to learn from the exchange.
"You right away discarded my stance which was religion, when you discuss spiritual matters, they automatically belongs to religion. Yet you right away said "They also relied primarily on their own subjective experiences and religious interpretations as opposed to facts, evidence, or anything academic""
Spirituality and religion represent different approaches to meaning, purpose, and connection. In a structured debate, the Con's responsibility is to present a counter-argument. This is not a personal attack, it's the framework of the discussion. If that fundamental dynamic is interpreted as disrespect, it might be worthwhile to reconsider your involvement in formal debate.
Whether consciously or not, your argument rested on the shifting sands of subjective experience and religious interpretation. You presented an anecdote unique to yourself, followed by an assertion of divine intervention—neither of which lends itself to empirical scrutiny. Therefore, my earlier statement remains demonstrably factual, despite your apparent surprise
"You said you would believe something come out of empirical analysis.
And so on,
Probably you are a kid, you do not know what you are saying and what that means."
My position was crystal clear: I require concrete, physical evidence – and yes, that encompasses empirical analysis – before accepting a claim as true. It's deeply ironic that you, who clearly doesn't grasp the meaning of 'irrelevant' as evidenced by your arbitrary deletion of half my points simply because you lack a counterargument, would resort to condescendingly calling me a 'kid' and implying I'm ignorant of fundamental concepts. Perhaps, before you throw around such childish insults, you should familiarize yourself with basic vocabulary and address the actual content of what I'm saying, instead of resorting to censorship. It's a sad display of intellectual laziness.
"My response was according to your response and also adequate.
Do not cry bro."
Seriously? 'Don't cry bro' is the pinnacle of your response? You're the one who resorted to deleting my points, then hypocritically addressing them, and finally launching personal attacks based on my atheism – an issue I never even raised. If anyone's 'crying' here, it's the insecure, religious zealot who crumbles into petty insults the moment their cherished narrative is questioned.
If this is how Allah's 'ambassadors' behave, then either you're utterly incompetent, or your deity has exceptionally poor taste in followers.
Frankly, your repeated disrespect has rendered my attempts to engage with you futile. The accusations of intellectual dishonesty, the mischaracterization of my statements, and the attacks on my character based on my atheism, along with an apparent religious bias, signal a complete disregard for constructive engagement, leading me to disengage entirely.
Respect is reciprocal – a fact you ignored. You accused me of emotional reasoning, while presenting your anecdote as evidence. Declaring yourself 'Ambassador of Islam' confirms that your engagements were always driven by bias and emotions more than mine are.
I adhered to the debate; you were the one who introduced personal narratives and religious dogma. You need to either take your own advice or avoid hypocritical criticism in the first place.
Your 'lazy' label is as baseless as all other biased positions and does not change that facts of videos always needing way more time than just a written format. So respond however you like – with a detailed response, a video like mine, or not at all. None of that is any longer a matter of my interests. Any level or action you want or think you must produce is entirely at your liberty.
I completely understand and I am fully happy to explain further as you asked.
" I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?"
So, here is the problem with that argument. Regardless if you think the Holy spirt is a real and a being incapable of error. The fact is that this being is not the one leading the catholic church. It is human beings teaching other human beings. So, that would still make the Catholic churches fallible even if the Christian God promised to guide their decisions. In fact, that argument kind of works against itself when you think about it. it goes back to my original point that if the teaching is indeed infallible, then its incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrong doing.
The fact that members of a an organization that commit errors despite being given teachings from a being promising not to allow it from the start just makes no sense. See, there is a good rule in philosophy called the law of none-contradiction. Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. For instance, if the catholic church is infallible, then it cannot be capable of error. If you say it can in some context (such as members) but not in others (such as teachings) Then that is in violation of such law.
"Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself."
Yes, it still applies. two things cannot be true if they are indirect conflict of each other. To declare an entire organization of any kind infallible requires everything related to it to fit that same standard. To admit to even isolated cases of error is to work against your own argument. Now, if this debate had been about a specific moral teaching of the catholic church and your position was to argue how that moral teaching cannot be proven wrong, I could see some leeway. However, we are talking about an entire church. Not the moral teachings themselves.
"Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters?"
Yes, because we're about the Catholic Church as a whole. Not simply ideologies. You may have meant the debate to be focused on the infallibly of the Catholic church ideologies In which case, the debate have have been something along the lines of "The catholic church teachings are infallible." Unfortunately, the claim was the entire church, which means EVERYTHING about the church must be examined and proved on your end that is without error.
The debate essentially became a case where Pro argued that the church was incapable of error because God or Jesus promised to keep is safe from error. Con replied back that their are contradictory teachings and other issues that cast doubt on that claim. You conceded to this point, but tried to argue back that it only applied when it came to the members and not the teachings itself. For me that is when you are trying to play a game of semantics and that doesn't work as an argument. So, I found Con's argument stronger overall.
Hello, it has been a while. Your debate rules might state that the bible is divinely inspired and therefore its contents taken as true in the context of the debate. However, that doesn't establish the claim that the principle of divine protection means the church is protected from error. In order to argue that something is infallible, you have to establish that its logic and reasoning cannot be challenged. Key example of this would be the statement: Socrates was Greek, all Greeks are mortal, therefore Socrates was a moral Greek. The statement is infallible because it's supported by both logic and fact.
Your claim about the Catholic church works the same way. If it cannot be established that the church is in fact protected by some divine force that prohibits it from making mistakes, which you did not establish, only claimed, then you cannot effectively argue that the Catholic Church is free from error.
"You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members"
Yes, you may have tried to argue that the infallibility applied only to the teaching of faith and morals. However, that argument is a contradiction. As I explained in my reasoning, you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive. That's like saying history is completely infallible and then when a student finds wrong or conflicting information from the curriculum you say its the teacher and not the material in the wrong. The fallacy in such an argument is very obvious. If the teaching is true and error free, then the teacher themselves are irrelevant in the context of infallibility within the context of the teaching.
" Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide"
This is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. The title of the debate claims that the Catholic Church is infallible. You, as pro, must demonstrate that the Catholic Church (which include its members and teachings a like) are therefore incapable of error. You cannot enter the debate supporting the idea that the catholic church 's assertion of infallibility is true, and then try to claim it is only half true or dependent on the context. The same would be true if the title said "Human history is infallible" and I, the pro then argued that only the teachings of human history is infallible, not the historians in charge of teaching it. That's simply not how reality works. If something is infallible then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No excerptions.
I hope that clarified my position. You guys had an awesome debate regardless. keep up the good work!
That requirement does not make any sense. As con, you are opposed to the very idea. Meaning you are against the idea of not questioning such a God.
I must say that I am currently disappointed in this debate. Both sides seem to be lacking when it comes to making an effective argument. Pro disappoints me because they are trying to argue that access to abortion is a fundamental human right, yet they provide no legal sources proving that this is a truthful statement, nor do they explain why we should, on a legal basis, even theorize that possibility. Con also disappoints me because, even though they are supposed to be opposed to the idea of abortion services being a fundamental human right, they are instead weakening their position by stating they actually agree with women having the right to abortion, which is not the role they should be playing in this debate.
>That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
Thats the thing though, Pro never proved it was probable from a natural point of view. in fact, they conceded that it could not happen naturally. Hence why they invoked the name of God and claimed God was the reason it happened due to the events being Supernatural in nature. Plus, supernation events cannot be proven, so that would work against Pro, not for them.
I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point.
Obviously since this world is determined by physics then something being physically impossible is the prefect argument for why something wasn't possible. I also disagree with you claim that I did not dispute supernatural events because I actually did.
If you note in the debate, I kept drawing a contrast between theology and academia. I even specifically mention that supernatural events cannot be considered historical because like science, history only deals in the natural phenomenon. Not supernatural, and since Jesus' resurrection is a supernatural event, it cannot be claimed to be historically proven.
That is literally me disputing the existence of supernatural events. Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it.
And if my argument could have been viewed in the manner I indeed, which was that the bible isn't considered a historical book outside of religion, The Apostles claimed experience is hearsay, Jesus was a human and the physical and thus impossible to revive after three days (a point that couldn't be refuted), and that theology based evidence of supernatural events cannot be conflicted with actual academia or history.
Instead, people choose to ignore these points for some reason and claim I made no effective argument, and for some reason tried to argue that "proof" and "probability" were somehow different, which made no sense to me. But I do get it, everyone's view is different. And I respect every voters' decision at the end of the day. Thank you for voting.
I see where the confusion happened. The nazi comparison had nothing to do with the existence of Adolf Hiler. The comparison was between a nazi soldier fully believing that Adolf Hitler was a person trying to make Germany a great nation and the apostle's belief that Jesus was in fact resurrected. Not about Hitler or Hitler's existence. The comparison was purely about believing in what they thought even if what they thought was not correct. That tied into my argument that my Apostles may not have been lying but may not have been correct in their belief either. So, you misunderstood that part.
\
The basis of my argument was the claim by Pro that the Apostles' conviction and readiness to die for their beliefs served as proof of the resurrection's occurrence. My rebuttal centered on the notion that one's firm belief in something and willingness to die for it does not necessarily mean it is true, thereby making conviction alone an insufficient validation of truth.
Yes
Its not an issue, I just felt that your reasoning was based on misunderstandings on the arguments I put forth IE focusing on hallucinations and claims that I did not argue against the Disciples testimony. And when you agreed that you didn't necessarily give more consideration, my suggestion was just to reevaluate your vote and then give it better and more accurate reasoning.
I do not see why You would think that it would cause people to accuse of rigging or undue influence. But if that is a major concern, then the vote can stay where it is and I will follow your suggestion. It was not to try and sway your vote, but to get a more accurate reasoning.
Right, and that's why I said you misunderstood me. The hallucinations were just part of me disputing Pro's attempts at saying even atheist scholars like Gerd agreed that the disciples saw Jesus come back from the dead when he stated the opposite. The main focus of the debate was about the probability of Jesus coming back from the dead. And my position held three main points. The medical impossibility of Jesus coming back from the dead (which you got right) The inability to verify the claims of the disciples. (Hence the historical reference comparison and psychological sources.) And that the resurrection of Jesus is a supernatural event rather than a historical event. (which is why I brought sources that show the definitional difference between history and theology as well as the difference between a historical event and a supernatural event). Now, that we have that covered. Could you please consider recasting your vote to properly reflect my position and confirm the final determination of your stance?
The only issue I take with your vote is that you say that I never dispute the disciple's experience with Jesus. However, I did argue against it by pointing out that eyewitness testimony is hearsay. I also go into great detail about the ability of a group of people to die for their beliefs even if that belief is false or not proven. I even provided a link to that effect. I am also confused about your point about hallucinations. You say I never address the hallucination counter. However, the only reason hallucinations were mentioned at all was because I pointed out that Pro's claim that a renowned atheist scholar named Gerd Ludemann said that the apostles saw the resurrection is not true since Gerd had taken the position that they experienced a hallucination.
So, I didn't respond to Pro's hallucination counter for two reasons. One because the hallucinations point was one, I brought up and it was used to counter their claims about Gerd and not if they actually experienced one or not. And two Pro never addressed my point about Gerd nor provided any counter-source to that point.
Just letting you know because I think you misunderstood some of my arguments.
sure we can.
My apologies for the round, I have been back in school recently and I was told by the system that I had at least a day left, clearly the system lied to me.
Sorry I thought I was con
I apologize, I am dealing with a lot of personal issues, obligations, and stress, that is why I have not participated and forfeited some rounds.
Just to let you know, I will make a video response to your arguments as I found that doing this helps make my arguments more concise and easier to write.
Well, I just released another video, would enjoy hearing your views on it.
Yeah, I realize that now.
It was a fun debate, nevertheless. However I wish we had not gone into so many different ways about it so that the arguments did not get so monstrous to read.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. To be honest, I assumed it might have been just me stunning you with my excellent arguments. lol. I would recommend using Clip Champ if you are running a windows 11. It has a built-in AI text-to-speech that would allow you to say whatever you want through text. The AI voice as you can tell from my video is crystal clear and all of it is completely free.
Thanks, man. I appreciate the insight.
" Essentially I felt like you were calling me stupid with your response, and I was offended, so I really fail to see why I wouldn't insult you back the same way you insulted me."
See this as a clear example of why you should be open to criticism and see that your logic can indeed be flawed from time to time. You say that you felt I called you stupid with my response, but did my response call you stupid? No, all I said was that you should have put that reasoning in writing when casting your vote and I asked you a question based on it. that is not an implication of calling you stupid. that is simply communication.
Furthermore, at any time, you could have expressed that you felt offended by what I said, and explained why, and I could have easily explained as I am doing now why it is not offensive. In contrast, you intentionally called me retarded and tried to argue that it wasn't an insult when it was. Now, you try to say that you did so because I somehow offended you by making you feel that I was calling you stupid despite never having done so or so much having implied. That is called being illogical and irrational.
So, I will end my comment by saying that while I can understand that your actions may have been driven by childhood trauma triggers that caused you to act irrationally and that you may have somehow felt offended over what I said based on an illogical framework that may or may not be the result of your underline disabilities. I still recommend that you reevaluate your approach. You seem to have misconstrued disrespectful conduct and insulting language to be on the same level as helpful criticism when its fact there are clear differences. You seem to indicate that merely questioning your reasoning or expressing disagreement is enough for you to think other people are calling you stupid when that is not the case.
You should be respectful to people, especially if you disagree with them if they have not done anything to harm or attack you. You should take your background of having disabilities as a valuable lesson as to why you should show compassion and understanding to people with other disabilities instead of belittlement. And lastly, you should also not expect people to understand you, or you're reasoning regardless of your disabilities or lack thereof. No one can truly understand another unless they question and critique them. That's how communication works. And above all, do not presume that someone doesn't agree is because they are calling you stupid or lack compensation. There is an infinite school of thought in every situation.
"Maybe that's because I grew up and needed a ton of speech classes because I couldn't speak right and be understood."
See, now I am truly lost, because whether you realize it or not, others including myself have grown up with disabilities and been misunderstood as well. So, you more than most should be able to see what is wrong with mocking others or insulting them. Especially if it's over a perceived disadvantage that you think the other person might have. But you did the opposite of that. Also, for your information, many of those who suffer from ASD have speech issues that can make communication difficult. Some cases have it to where they never learn to speak at all. So, in the end, I get the frustration you are expressing. But it doesn't excuse anything. If anything, such experiences should have taught you the value of respect and getting to know someone before rendering judgment.
"Maybe that is because I myself have been surrounded by teams of psychologists as a kid because people cannot understand me, maybe it is due to me having a learning disability and feeling like I am stupid and when people do not understand me, I am not sure if I am being called too stupid to write clearly or if I am actually so stupid that my logic is incomprehensible and thus stupid and it offends me."
Now, I never got the help I needed growing up because I was born in 97 and there was very little help for my disability when growing up. So, again, I completely understand where you are coming from. However, what you have to understand is two things. One, while I may have said what you said made no sense, I never implied it was that you were stupid. Merely disagreeing with you is not an implication that you lack intellect. And two, you should be open to the possibility that your logic is indeed flawed. That's what a critical thinker is supposed to do. No one's logic is completely flawless, and it wouldn't matter if it was as that still would not mean what they say is right.
I had no issue for example with you saying that you found my argument unconvincing. I would have accepted that without issue. But when you implied that you were not convinced by the Cons argument, you found at least some persuasion in mine. I took that as you voting outside the criteria, which is based on better arguments. And when we devolved in deeper you seemed to have contradicted itself more the more, so I kept arguing back to get you to see my point.
That's dumb. Decorum is another word for lying, and I do give respect."
Wow, way to show your lack of research, Decorum by definition means to be socially calm, correct, and polite. lying means to say something completely untrue for the specific purpose of deceiving others. Which is actually in contrast to what decorum means.
"You forfeited after seeing my argument, so........................ Now when I list out realistic reasons for that to occur only one came up."
Firstly, I did not forfeit after "seeing your argument." I told you very clear and plainly that I was not interested in debating you because you insulted my IQ in your video. at no point did I say, "I won't debate you because your video was hard to argue against. It is not my fault that you cannot listen to the writing on your screen. Which, you lied about btw. as you tried to say you only briefly mocked me and moved on, but you actually spent 7 minutes insulting me out of the 28 minutes of video. You also can't claim to give respect to people you also call shit. Sorry, but that's again called being toxic.
"If you are only going to improve when somebody who criticizes you also kisses your ass, then you will never improve."
Please explain to me how my saying: "Do not disrespect me, and I will be glad to hear what you have to say," somehow translated to, "Kiss my ass before critiquing me"? This is honestly making me concerned. Every time I try to give a very simple logical answer. Such as Don't insult me + show respect = I will listen to what you have to say. You turn it to some form of illogical argument of Dominance or try to say being a bully is somehow helpful. You can't justify your toxic behavior with illogical arguments.
"I also feel like you disrespected me by not understanding what I said. A failure to understand me for whatever reason, really pisses me off."
First of all, I never disrespected you before you insulted me. The worst I said to you before you insulted me by calling me mentally handicaped was that you were double-talking and that you did not vote by the Criteria. That is not disrespectful nor is it a lack of understanding. That is called DISAGREEMENT. See, you say failure to understand you piss you off for any reason. You think I misunderstood you, which is subjective btw, and that doesn't justify attacking my character, which is something I did not do to you initially. Thats disrespect. me saying that I do not understand your reasoning or pointing out why it doesn't make sense from my perspective is called constructive criticism. As I critiqued what you said without making it personal. You did not do the same.
"well the video is the vote, and the few sentences is a summary of the video so not sure why you would judge the vote based on the summary of the vote, I am also not sure why you would continue to misrepresent the explanation of the vote either."
I never misrepresented you. I addressed everything you said as you said it in the comment's and when you contradicted yourself as I continue to demonstrate even now, you kept on arguing and eventually insulted me.
"Who cares what I think. I can say I don't think you are stupid for disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people who disagree with me are bright. I thought you were stupid for the comprehension issues."
It's less about what you think and more of the fact you tried to defame my character. As I said before, when you treat people as if they are stupid just because they do not agree with you, you lose respect and any hopeful critique you want to give will be ignored even if it was helpful. This is the part that I am trying to get you to understand. You cannot disrespectfully treat people, and then a second later be like: Oh, but I want to be helpful. That is called being toxic and no one listens to that. And again, you prove my point.
You made assumptions about me without actually knowing me. And even now as I try to get you do understand why the way you went about this was insensitive and wrong, you fail to COMPREHEND that just because I have a different perspective on this matter, doesn't indicate I lack intelligence. As much as I hate religion as an atheist, you would do well to remember this wise saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
"I likely have autism. Either that or OCPD which is nearly the same thing. I did google it and a high functioning autist can have an IQ as low as 80, but I personally have autistic cousins who have IQs in the 130-150 range and so I was thinking of them, when I thought of high functioning. I can now see that maybe my standards for high functioning, may have been too high."
First of all, you do not know if you have autism or not until you have been psychologically evaluated. Secondly, OCPD is not the same as Autism. Autism is a neurological developmental disability that has an actual Spectrum of classifications which is why is categorized as ASD. OCPD is an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It involves having unwanted thoughts that can be obsessive. Although they may both be disabilities. They are not similar in any manner. lastly, who are you to tell who has high IQ or not? What PDHD or college that you graduated from do you base that authority on? I suspect none personally. So, maybe it's not that your standards are too high, but rather you simply never learned to be respectful as a person.
"The comments actually explain the vote and are not the vote, so obviously will be a shortened version of 2 hours of logic boiled down to a sentence or 2, but those sentences should have brought up some ideals in your head of where you went wrong. I know when I debate I know what mistakes I made, even before the judge points them out."
And, as I explained before, had they made sense to me they would have. But that is where the disconnection came. You said I "dropped" my legal arguments early on and did not focus on them. Yet, the first round of my argument solidified my Connotational stance and understanding, and as I have just shown you, I never stopped referencing law and the Constitution throughout my rounds. I also think this might be part of the problem I mentioned earlier. You think that just because your reasoning made sense to you, it should make sense to everyone, but that's not reality. Had you attempted to understand why I could see things differently, we could have worked to find mutual understanding. Instead, you just kept defending your position with more and more irrational rhetoric that I constantly showed was double talk and when I wouldn't relent you went on offensive mode.
"I am pretty sure I gave at least one example of each. For example when you focused on the history of abortion in America. That was a red herring you focused on or in the first round where you touched on how The supreme court decides what is constitutional but you didn't seem to stick with the argument and it never was expanded on or brought back up in additional rounds."
See, that's the whole thing, you call it a "red herring," but no one but you understand what you mean by that. It's also false to say that I did not stick with the Supreme Court argument. What happened is that Con claimed in the first round that Abortion was a long-time accepted tradition that had been legal for 250 years. I countered that by providing a source that showed anti-abortion laws since the 1820s. I also pointed out Con's contradiction in saying that abortion is both a long-time tradition but also that anti-abortionists held the power during that same time.
"That is what we are referring to as a drop here. You dropped your own argument, not your opponents. You seemed to address his arguments but failed to fully understand his premises and instead focused on counterarguments as opposed to rebuttals about his premises."
Again, that makes no sense. First, your idea of "dropping" an argument seems to be based on the idea that I, "didn't stick with the argument" but that is false as I brought up the Supreme Court multiple times throughout the debate. in Round 1: I provided a source that showed Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I also provided a link to the 9th Amendment that showed that people could not use the 9th Amendment to say abortion was a right undefined by the US Constitution. The basis of the first round can be summed up by me saying that Roe V. Wade. was overturned. The Constitution does not mention Abortion, and the 9th Amendment cannot be used to say that it does. So, I by no means "dropped the argument.
The Second round had me provide several rebuttals including countering Cons' claim that abortion was legal for 250 years with a source that proved abortion had been made illegal throughout several periods that Con said it was legal. Also countered Con's claim about the 10th Amendment and provided several sources that proved the legal difference between the 13th Amendment, the definition of slavery itself, and abortion. And I countered Con's false claim that women can be locked up for live as abortion was a felony by providing serval sources that showed it was only in Texas, and not as a standard rule.
The third round saw me use the 19th, and 14th, as well as the 13th Amendment to counter claims made by Con and affirm that they do not prove Abortion is not a constitutional right. And me and Con had our disagreements over case law, where he said that it was unconstitutional for Supreme Court to rule Abortion as not a right based on case law and I said that any thing not in the Constitution yet still claimed to be a right is decided in case law and thus constitutional.
And I can keep going but the point is that contrary to the narrative you try to create, I never "dropped" any argument. Now, did other areas get mentioned outside of the law? Yes, because Con was making claims such as the Supreme Court being run by cultists and that women had no rights.
As far as rebuttals go, I do not get your point about that either because you keep saying that I either did not addressee his arguments, or I did, but the rebuttals failed to address what Con said, which you also tell me were irrelevant anyways and that I should have agreed to them anyway. See what happens when you not only double-talk but triple-talk? It gets very confusing.
In any case, it's not true anyway because there are several times where he made claims such as abortions not being illegal for 250 years and I responded with a Source that countered what he said. That is by definition a rebuttal. And if you cannot see that as addressing Con's argument, then we are living in two separate concepts of reality.
Well, I just released my argument video. I hope you enjoy it.
Listen, man, I told you a long time ago that I am a serious person. I do not tolerate any trolling or disrespect. Now, You say that You feel like you failed as a voter because you did not give criticism that helped both sides of the debate improve. However, what you fail to realize is that your idea of "Criticism" borders on bullying and toxicity rather than real advice. You may not see it that way, but that doesn't change that is how it is taken.
For example, the reason our conversation got so heated wasn't that I could not take criticism. It was because when you told me your reasoning, it did not make sense to me and seemed to go against the role of voting. When I tried to explain that to you, rather than see things from my point of view, as I tried to understand yours. You simply argued inconsistently, made several claims that I refuted, and even made accusations such as I "dropped promising legal arguments" and you even went so far as to misquote me on my argument about Con's comparison to pregnancy being slavery.
Had you instead said something along the lines of, "Well, I did not like either pro or cons argument and, here is why," and then provided actual examples for what you said, I would have been perfectly fine with it. Instead, you said, "Con made a stupid and wrong argument but I gave them the vote because Pro dropped several promising legal arguments and chased irrelevant red herrings." Which was vague and very misleading especially since what you said later was inconsistent with this statement.
Now, you did make a video explaining your vote, and the mods did permit it. However, My issue was not based on anything you said in the video. My issue came about the comments you made, which eventually became offensive as time went on.
True helpful criticism would have been something along these lines:
"I looked at both arguments and while I am not convinced of either one, the Cons argument was better to me based on (whatever examples you want). Had Pro done (whatever other example you want to give), I might have been more inclined to vote for them."
Now, that might be what you did in your video, but that is not what you did not this site. On the site, you used disrespectful language, calling both of mine and Con's argument shit, that you spit on both of us and that you think I am mentally challenged just for disagreements I had with what you said. This is not helpful criticism. That is called being toxic.
Now, where you have been a bully is not only in the fact that you called me names and called me retarded, but you also went so far as to talk to me about my autism and what level on the spectrum I am in. Now, you may not have known this but telling someone born with autism what level they are on or not. Is very disrespectful in particular.
And I think the part of all this the most is that you do not understand that when you have offended someone, regardless of whether you understand why the other person is offended by what you said, and regardless of if you believe it is offensive, you are supposed to respect the offended person's view on the matter and stop. You did not do so. You CONTINUED to do it even after I told you to stop, and others told you to stop as well. And since then, you have gone on to call me a shity person and I suck too bad to win a debate with you.
No one would want to take advice from someone who acts like that. That's just basic common sense. And I will be honest with you, the whole reason I unblocked you was because after I saw you make videos on the site, I thought, "Huh, maybe I misjudged that person, " because you came across to me as a thoughtful person when on video and not a jerk as I took you for when I first met you. Now, your actions and subsequent actions have once again soured my view of you. You make great videos but are simply not respectful as a person.
The Point I am making is that if you want your critique to be heard, and even listened to. Then you need to show decorum and respect. That means No insulting a person by calling them Retarded or shity, nor trying to insult their intellect. And especially do not try to act as if you know a person's actual disabilities more than they do, if you can manage that, then I would have no issue taking criticisms from you or improvements. However, if your response is to say, "No, I am going to just be insulting and not care how other people feel," then be prepared to be ignored. No one has to take shit from you just because you feel entitled to belittle them.
Thank you White flower for evaluating the vote. I appreciate you brining clarity to the issue.
ah. it was a good debate.
"you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate"
Thank you for once again admitting that you are actively trying to insult my IQ, which you have told not to do and yet continue to do. The mods will surely appreciate that when they investigate the matter. Just as I appreciate being able to report it.
Yes, this is a better debate to have. I look forward to hearing your first argument.
"You knew you sucked too much to defeat me, not sure why you bothered to accept."
"Sorry for calling you too shitty too defeat me when you quite literally have decided to forfeit because you are too shitty to defeat me"
Your words on top of presuming my IQ. Tell it to the mods at this point. I don't care what you try to say at this point.
Also, a flaw in your logic, if I KNEW I was going to forfeit, I would never have accepted the debate, and I would have not said anything afterward. It was only AFTER I watched your video response, which was supposed to be about this topic, that I said to myself, "This guy is bringing up an unrelated argument to mock my IQ level again. There's no point in debating with a rule breaker." You even encourage other people to watch my other debates to conclude that I have low intelligence. You do not want to debate; you want to bully, and I am damn sure going to let the mods know that when you make it obvious.
I may have accepted the debate, but I had no way of knowing that you were going to accuse me of having Low intellect. AGAIN. After AGREEING to stop doing so. You were told to Stop MANY times before this and told that making assumptions about other people's IQ is against the COC. I am not going to get banned for reporting you for something you KNOW and were TOLD to not do. Unlike you, I do not violate the rules.
I believe you should see this. And also watch his latest video insulting my intelligence AFTER White Flower told him MANY times to stop,
You can keep on insulting me, but I am just going to report you more.
Thank you, that's reported as well.
Thank you, that's reported as well.
I will not be debating with you at all. I have just watched your first YouTube, "Argument" for this debate, and I have found you to still be violating the rules of this site. You were told MANY times to not insult anyone's IQ on this website and the MODs have told you these many times. You continue to ignore them by making IQ conditions in the rules and immediately stating my IQ level is 120 by demanding the vote of conduct vote based on what you think my is IQ level in your video. I have informed White Flower of your latest violation. I will not debate with someone who breaks the COC on this site. Good day.
agreed.
To be fair, Jesus is acknowledged both historically and biblically as a real figure who died on the cross. Therefore, most people do not believe he was non-existent. However, there is a distinction between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus, as they are not considered the same entity. Bible Jesus is the one described as the son of God, died for our sins, etc. History Jesus is just a man who lived in Palestine, opposed Roman Rule, gained a following, gave moral teachings, and was eventually executed under suspicion of planning to overthrow Roman rule.
One could argue that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was not crucified as he represents a fictionalized version of the actual Jesus, whose divine paternity cannot be substantiated. But your topic is just about Jesus being crucified in general, which is undisputed.