You are absolutely screwed, Steven Crowder himself has descended from his throne and is about to out wit, out source, out conduct, out smart, out analyse, out debate and out life you. As the man himself stated, the odds of you winning "r 0".
"You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth"
How do you know this? For all you know, I could be the son of a Saudi Arabia prince who's swimming in bills and driving golden lambo's. Moreover, you make this claim as a direct insult to my apparent wealth, not to point out a truth about my age.
"My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month?"
No not carrying a grudge over a month. It's just some people's character doesn't change in a month, so my analysis of them a month ago is still relevant today.
"Get over yourself, punk."
This statement would have much more oompf if you had actually won/am in the process of beating me. Neither of which is true. The contrary, actually.
It is not in my nature to gloat when I win. In fact, I am quite a nice and kind mannered person who is humble in victory in defeat [1]. It's just when some dude comes to insult me when I did nothing to provoke them and proceeds to lose (predictable twice), I remind them what a whooping I have them and tell them they ought to learn some respect.
"There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young."
What does that even mean.
"I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power"
Well I've beaten a top tenner then.
" Hint: I don't gloat when I win."
This isn't gloating. This is coming back to the guy who said I don't own a house, who's car is owned by their bank and who, in the pursuit for intelligent discourse, was accused of miscommunicating with his sock puppet.
How does it feel like to lose to a "sock puppet" [1] who "doesn't own the property they occupy"? [1], and who's "bank owns their car" [1] Must be tough 🤣🤣.
Thanks for the vote. In what way do you think the rule is cowardly? I have recently already had a 4 round 30 000 character debate with him so I wasn't up for more rounds with the same person.
"Barring the fact that FAUXLAW didn’t follow Rule 7 and therefore was an instant loss to him, and leaving this notion upon the wayside, nonetheless, Bones literally “owned” the Bible runaway FAUXLAW with his logical deductions and facts against FAUXLAW’S continued Bible stupidity and ignorance, bar none!"
Religion is a lot more than a bunch of peaceful monks praying themselves. Religion discriminates against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy and apostasy and is a major wall between people and the pursuit of truth. Just consider the incontrovertible scientific fact of evolution. It is of absolutely no dispute to anyone with 2nd-grade biology knowledge, yet we have fully grown people unironically arguing against it because their old book says so.
"If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines"
Excellent point. However, if Jesus really were real, why would he not have foreseen the stupidity of the future generation and given people eternal truth, instead of facts which are subjectively true to only a certain time period? Why give us stupid advice, such as "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'" Matthew 5:27-28
Religion has outlived it's usefulness. As Seneca once said "“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
"would you say that someone who places a 50% probability in God existing is an atheist? Because that’s the only relevant question – if someone thinks there’s a 49.9% chance God exist, then they actively reject God’s existence "
I wouldn't say 51 percent requires one to bear the burden, and I wouldn't say that to believe something with more than a 50 percent makes you bear the burden. I make an assumption and say that you don't believe in invisible garden fairies. I'll wager another guess and say that you're disbelief in garden fairies is a tad bit more than 50 percent. Does this mean that you bear the BoP just to justify the non-existence of garden fairies? Obviously, you can atheistic on invisible garden fairies and consider your disbelief to be over 50 percent without needing to justify this position. Personally, I am almost certain that there are no garden fairies, but I will concede that I cannot prove this.
Interested in voting? I am aware that you are an agnostic who is not as convicted of their view on religion. Perhaps your clean canvas can give an informed vote? I know this is a long one, so no worries if you can't.
Well I never said that he couldn't kritik my argument. I have to say, looking back, my argument was pretty poor, not necessarily from a conduct point of view, but actual effectiveness. There are plenty of ways PRO could have easily swept the floor here. For example, he can say "whilst it is true that 17 million people died in the Holocaust, it is still true to say that 6 million people died. After all, 6 million people did die, didn't they". Factually, the statement "6 million people died in the Holocaust" is as factual as "my great aunt died in the Holocaust". Both of them are true, but don't take into account all the other victims, which isn't necessarily an issue.
Brother, I think your beloved introduction for Fauxlaw, "FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum as explicitly shown, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts to him by me, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times," can be greatly supported by this situation in the comment section.
STRIKE 1:
Fauxlaw"selective adherence"
...............^
Should be "Selective" not "selective" thus ur adherence to my incorrect use of grammar is nullified. Clearly if you are unable to spell, you are in no position to tell others how to do so.
STRIKE 2:
Fauxlaw commits a Tu quoque fallacy.
The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the following template.
p1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
p2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
c1. Therefore, X is false.
And specifically in this situation
p1. BONES claims that it is grammatically correct to start a sentence with a capital letter.
p2. FAUXLAW asserts that BONES has used slang and thus is inconsistent with the truth claim that capital letters start a sentence.
c1. Therefore, starting a sentence with a capital letter is incorrect.
You've changed your stance?
Damn why didn't you call me up.
Thanks for the quick response.
mmmm I may be in trouble.
I read the first sentence, the first three words even and I already know where this came from.
Done, challenge accepted.
Did you get busy? Want a rematch?
Picking the easy wins :)
To be immoral is to violate moral principles. Homosexuality does not violate nor conform to moral principles.
Exactly. Saying homosexuality is "moral" is like saying being black is "moral".
Another theist to add to the list...
Welcome to the cite.
You are absolutely screwed, Steven Crowder himself has descended from his throne and is about to out wit, out source, out conduct, out smart, out analyse, out debate and out life you. As the man himself stated, the odds of you winning "r 0".
How do you assert that we ought follow moral rules, yet prescribe to moral subjectivism? Also, do you believe mathematics is subjective?
I believe moral answers are as objective as mathematics and science.
"You can challenge a debater this debate."
I know, but I don't mind if other's want to participate.
"Also, I think you are arguing a truism."
You'll be surprised with what religion can do to people.
for you.
That is the exact argument I am using.
Haha, be hopeful, maybe I'll instigate this debate and someone will absolutely deconstruct my arguments....
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6513-hall-of-fame-upcoming?page=1&post_number=13
Do you think science and mathematics are objective?
If one wants to play the sceptic game, they can very easily make the argument that absolutely every fact is subjective.
You voted for the wrong person, I think. RM = CON, Deadfire = PRO. RM forfeited most the rounds, so you should have given PRO the conduct point.
This is for you.
"You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth"
How do you know this? For all you know, I could be the son of a Saudi Arabia prince who's swimming in bills and driving golden lambo's. Moreover, you make this claim as a direct insult to my apparent wealth, not to point out a truth about my age.
"My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month?"
No not carrying a grudge over a month. It's just some people's character doesn't change in a month, so my analysis of them a month ago is still relevant today.
"Get over yourself, punk."
This statement would have much more oompf if you had actually won/am in the process of beating me. Neither of which is true. The contrary, actually.
It is not in my nature to gloat when I win. In fact, I am quite a nice and kind mannered person who is humble in victory in defeat [1]. It's just when some dude comes to insult me when I did nothing to provoke them and proceeds to lose (predictable twice), I remind them what a whooping I have them and tell them they ought to learn some respect.
[1] https://www.debateart.com/debates/3071-is-god-real?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=3
"There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young."
What does that even mean.
"I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power"
Well I've beaten a top tenner then.
" Hint: I don't gloat when I win."
This isn't gloating. This is coming back to the guy who said I don't own a house, who's car is owned by their bank and who, in the pursuit for intelligent discourse, was accused of miscommunicating with his sock puppet.
How does it feel like to lose to a "sock puppet" [1] who "doesn't own the property they occupy"? [1], and who's "bank owns their car" [1] Must be tough 🤣🤣.
[1] https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6171-breaking-news-i-actually-own-the-us?page=1&post_number=10
I didn't read the debate, but I think a debate of this length deserves a bit more of a substantial vote than that.
You intend on making a case?
"Reported Votes: RationalMadman, sigmaphil, Intelligence_06"
Wow really? Come on. Here's some pepper for your salt.
https://giphy.com/gifs/fire-spicy-flames-Fei3bkqnqXRCiVGUwL
Thanks for the vote. In what way do you think the rule is cowardly? I have recently already had a 4 round 30 000 character debate with him so I wasn't up for more rounds with the same person.
"Barring the fact that FAUXLAW didn’t follow Rule 7 and therefore was an instant loss to him, and leaving this notion upon the wayside, nonetheless, Bones literally “owned” the Bible runaway FAUXLAW with his logical deductions and facts against FAUXLAW’S continued Bible stupidity and ignorance, bar none!"
Couldn't have said it better than myself.
Well I'm glad the kritik master himself approved of my anti-kritiking. Thanks for the vote.
Thanks for the vote. I appreciate it.
Thanks for a good conversation, you’ve really grown as a debater.
Hopefully theogdebater isn’t going to ff this debate.
Another seemingly capable theist...
Religion is a lot more than a bunch of peaceful monks praying themselves. Religion discriminates against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy and apostasy and is a major wall between people and the pursuit of truth. Just consider the incontrovertible scientific fact of evolution. It is of absolutely no dispute to anyone with 2nd-grade biology knowledge, yet we have fully grown people unironically arguing against it because their old book says so.
"If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines"
Excellent point. However, if Jesus really were real, why would he not have foreseen the stupidity of the future generation and given people eternal truth, instead of facts which are subjectively true to only a certain time period? Why give us stupid advice, such as "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'" Matthew 5:27-28
Religion has outlived it's usefulness. As Seneca once said "“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
"Some people need it, to say the 'least."
Some people also believe that childhood vaccines cause autism.
Paper looks like a decently serious debater, I think. Doc’s a bit more of a meme.
https://tenor.com/view/take-your-l-skeleton-dance-fortnite-lose-gif-16185075
"would you say that someone who places a 50% probability in God existing is an atheist? Because that’s the only relevant question – if someone thinks there’s a 49.9% chance God exist, then they actively reject God’s existence "
I wouldn't say 51 percent requires one to bear the burden, and I wouldn't say that to believe something with more than a 50 percent makes you bear the burden. I make an assumption and say that you don't believe in invisible garden fairies. I'll wager another guess and say that you're disbelief in garden fairies is a tad bit more than 50 percent. Does this mean that you bear the BoP just to justify the non-existence of garden fairies? Obviously, you can atheistic on invisible garden fairies and consider your disbelief to be over 50 percent without needing to justify this position. Personally, I am almost certain that there are no garden fairies, but I will concede that I cannot prove this.
Thx for the vote. I’m aware that mobile devices cannot handle my quadriple dotting format very well, resulting to a possible difficult read.
Interested in voting? I am aware that you are an agnostic who is not as convicted of their view on religion. Perhaps your clean canvas can give an informed vote? I know this is a long one, so no worries if you can't.
Funny how ur bio states, and I kid you not.
“Fauxlaw is the title of my recent book”
Well I never said that he couldn't kritik my argument. I have to say, looking back, my argument was pretty poor, not necessarily from a conduct point of view, but actual effectiveness. There are plenty of ways PRO could have easily swept the floor here. For example, he can say "whilst it is true that 17 million people died in the Holocaust, it is still true to say that 6 million people died. After all, 6 million people did die, didn't they". Factually, the statement "6 million people died in the Holocaust" is as factual as "my great aunt died in the Holocaust". Both of them are true, but don't take into account all the other victims, which isn't necessarily an issue.
Brother, I think your beloved introduction for Fauxlaw, "FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum as explicitly shown, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts to him by me, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times," can be greatly supported by this situation in the comment section.
STRIKE 1:
Fauxlaw"selective adherence"
...............^
Should be "Selective" not "selective" thus ur adherence to my incorrect use of grammar is nullified. Clearly if you are unable to spell, you are in no position to tell others how to do so.
STRIKE 2:
Fauxlaw commits a Tu quoque fallacy.
The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the following template.
p1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
p2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
c1. Therefore, X is false.
And specifically in this situation
p1. BONES claims that it is grammatically correct to start a sentence with a capital letter.
p2. FAUXLAW asserts that BONES has used slang and thus is inconsistent with the truth claim that capital letters start a sentence.
c1. Therefore, starting a sentence with a capital letter is incorrect.
Regardless of what ur name is, the word fauxlaw was at the start of the sentence and thus requires a capital letter.
Actually, ignore my last comment, I'll go through with this. I needa teach this punk a lesson.
Is it possible to delete this debate? I don’t feel like getting repeatedly ignored and straw manned by my opponent, who I know will do exactly that.