Well, someone else accepted anyway, so you dont need me to accept. Its just that definition of free will in description, as well as saying science cant explain it... I dont feel like jumping into a debate without at least some idea what the debate will be about.
Its your choice. I am just saying there are no many Christians on this site, and even less who would take Con on this topic. Maybe someone will accept, but as it stands now, the topic greatly favors Pro, because by default debate starts with Church being equally valid authority as any other group, so you just need to prove Church as tiny bit more valid as authority to win debate. Con basically has to argue some other group is at least equal to Church in authority, which is completely unsupported by Bible. Bible, at the very least, strongly implies that Church has more authority, and never implies that some other person has equal authority. Of course, Con could argue "what if entire Catholic Church goes insane", but voters dont really accept such extremely imaginary scenarios well.
"debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise"
I guess, but you wont find many people agreeing that Bible is true and divine. This debate is basically just for Christians who dont think Church gets the final say, but Bible says it actually does, so the premise agreed upon already assumes the topic to be true, making this a truism which cannot even be argued against unless some severe mental gymnastics are used.
Its just contingency argument (cosmological argument) being applied to logic itself.
As for logic not always existing, or time before logic, it is taken from argument-question of who created laws of universe, but just changed to who created laws of logic.
Kamala will win by round 2, so I dont think my certainty can be disproved during debate, but I guess I can choose to not mention that Kamala won the elections.
Thats why I made it standard. I do kinda plan to keep my record.
Thanks.
All united under one ideal.
Any car driver willing to defend the morality of his car?
Not sure if I want to argue against trans rights.
See if anything needs to be changed.
Here you go.
Well, you are good challenge, so sure.
Money is more important than human rights.
Well, my life would have been better.
Sure, but dont expect me to try.
I wont argue for genocide, so I must stick with "living".
Well, thanks for putting in the effort. I do tend to make short debates, because long debates tend to make me tired.
You put much more effort in your vote than I did in this debate.
No, there is no anything objective in the world. All that exists is conditioned by senses, senses being impossible to prove by anything. Old story.
Of course it matters. But some people tend to lie that it doesnt matter. They are liars.
You would be questioning the God.
I would be saying that we shouldnt question the God.
You should never question God. God knows best.
I wont kill myself because I am a coward.
But you can only do it when its your turn to post round.
Just click on publish argument, then write an argument, scroll down, click preview then click post.
This is one of those debates where Con can forfeit all rounds and Pro still cant reasonably win.
You can google "US military principles" if you dont know what they are.
As for Zvezda's military principles, you will learn them either in round 1 either by watching the anime.
"children should certainly obey their parents"
What if their parents are stupid or evil? It happens a lot.
If its a tie, both of their records get broken.
Well, someone else accepted anyway, so you dont need me to accept. Its just that definition of free will in description, as well as saying science cant explain it... I dont feel like jumping into a debate without at least some idea what the debate will be about.
The debate seems too unclear for me to accept.
Good luck proving that it exists. So far no one managed to prove it.
There was one flat earther, but he quit the site.
It sure is.
"Destruction and protection are not comparable"
They sure are.
"You're operating this debate on the basis that destruction is inherently bad and protection is always good"
My position is that trying to protect something is better. Not sure what confuses you.
However, my position isnt that destruction is always bad. Protecting something means destroying things which attack it.
Full dedication to protect something.
Worked great so far.
People =/= migrants
Its like saying that there is a group of items which includes poop and coffee.
I can say "I like coffee better than poop and coffee."
Coffee is included in "poop and coffee", but it isnt the same as "poop and coffee".
Finally, number 1 on leaderboard.
The tyranny of Type1 is over.
Government pays = American citizen pays.
Its your choice. I am just saying there are no many Christians on this site, and even less who would take Con on this topic. Maybe someone will accept, but as it stands now, the topic greatly favors Pro, because by default debate starts with Church being equally valid authority as any other group, so you just need to prove Church as tiny bit more valid as authority to win debate. Con basically has to argue some other group is at least equal to Church in authority, which is completely unsupported by Bible. Bible, at the very least, strongly implies that Church has more authority, and never implies that some other person has equal authority. Of course, Con could argue "what if entire Catholic Church goes insane", but voters dont really accept such extremely imaginary scenarios well.
So Pro argues that government shouldnt help at all to people who are harmed, not even few dollars to them.
Good luck.
"debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise"
I guess, but you wont find many people agreeing that Bible is true and divine. This debate is basically just for Christians who dont think Church gets the final say, but Bible says it actually does, so the premise agreed upon already assumes the topic to be true, making this a truism which cannot even be argued against unless some severe mental gymnastics are used.
"Both parties accept the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative"
Yeah, this alone makes the debate about the Bible and not about the Church itself.
Basically, opponent has to agree that everything Bible says is true.
Nasty.
Oh well
Its just contingency argument (cosmological argument) being applied to logic itself.
As for logic not always existing, or time before logic, it is taken from argument-question of who created laws of universe, but just changed to who created laws of logic.
Kamala will win by round 2, so I dont think my certainty can be disproved during debate, but I guess I can choose to not mention that Kamala won the elections.
I hope my opponent doesnt forfeit after Kamala wins.
They should enable these voting times to be shorter.
Soon I will have the lowest rating in history of this site.
Soon.
Muhahahhaa
We all know Kamala will win
Common guys, maybe Kamala will lose during this debate, so I lose.