There is no reason why any of these arguments can't be turned around for normal people. Was that an oversight or an intended word-choice to make people confused?
You failed to disprove this point, which asserts that Algebraic equations are able to flawed. Meanwhile, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based off of Algebraic equations. And also, 0.3333 is the CLOSEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATE to 1/3, and is likely to be rounded off by 0 at the end of infinity.
0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0
Therefore,
0 x 1 = 0 x 2
And
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
Which simplifies to
0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2
And then
1 = 2
Math is weird, yo.
But does Russia vs Ukraine count as a "World" War? According to Wikipedia:
A world war is "a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world"
So far, the only two nations embroiled in conflict is Russia and Ukraine. There are 195 countries in the world, so to fulfill the BOP of "World" war, one would need to prove that most nations would join the war.
Broken since the use of the word "can" in the resolution means PRO's BOP is to prove at least one person has been benefited from book smarts in college, which you're obviously going to find.
YOU: So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God
ME:
The infinitely small chance of a atom being created that compresses itself and explodes to create a fully functional universe, is STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, in the form of the Bible, WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen.
YOU: No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.
ME: I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist.
YOU: Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?
Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals.
Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."
"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."
Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right.
"It is a belief system in it's own right"
Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity.
As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."
Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions.
Didn't expect any positive feedback, I went to sleep thinking of myself as a terrible debater. Shame I messed this up, but failures are a learning experience.
I accept your concession. I would like to do this debate again. I have a query though. Why don’t we just expand it for the February tournament, instead of for its own sake?
When people look at this debate, they think of this definition:
each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
By tricking them to accepting this debate without knowledge this is not the case, that is viewed as a trap.
There is no reason why any of these arguments can't be turned around for normal people. Was that an oversight or an intended word-choice to make people confused?
........
k
What is this topic-
Not so cocky now, are you?
Barney: Best of luck, I want to see how mad Novice gets when he was so confident but got destroyed.
Novice: Don't underestimate Barney.
At least go easy on him oro.
Thanks for a good debate!
Mod action was taken and conduct was removed, but as quoted in the mod report:
" the argument points are sufficiently justified"
-Whiteflame
You failed to disprove this point, which asserts that Algebraic equations are able to flawed. Meanwhile, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based off of Algebraic equations. And also, 0.3333 is the CLOSEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATE to 1/3, and is likely to be rounded off by 0 at the end of infinity.
0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0
Therefore,
0 x 1 = 0 x 2
And
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
Which simplifies to
0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2
And then
1 = 2
Math is weird, yo.
Excuse me?! Conduct?! Both sides were equally respectful to one another. That is a tie.
I will let Spelling and Grammar slide since CON made a few structure mistakes.
As for arguments, you never responded to CON's claim that 1 = 2, which used the same logic that you did. So, this could go either way.
The level of confidence you emitted with that post is unjustified since you both have an equally strong position.
Or I'm an idiot IDK
Yeah probably not the best topic. I didn't really know what to do and I was bored.
As for your question I believe a realistic approach would be better.
Much weaker argument than I expected, now wishing I had accepted.
If you're so well versed at this topic, why not accept it?
Is the BOP on PRO to prove that 0.99999999999 has a way of becoming the figure 1 by itself or is there some tricks I'm not seeing?
Please mention your problems with it.
Thanks for the vote! I agree CON focused on nukes a little too much.
Come on RM!
Thanks for the vote. I will talk with Vidur about a rematch.
I wouldn't say massive. I would say impossible.
Nonetheless, this looks like a school/study group, so they will most likely just argue about the different types of intelligence and whatnot.
But does Russia vs Ukraine count as a "World" War? According to Wikipedia:
A world war is "a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world"
So far, the only two nations embroiled in conflict is Russia and Ukraine. There are 195 countries in the world, so to fulfill the BOP of "World" war, one would need to prove that most nations would join the war.
Broken since the use of the word "can" in the resolution means PRO's BOP is to prove at least one person has been benefited from book smarts in college, which you're obviously going to find.
I find it humorous you dedicated an entire comment for one point but didn't understand the basis for the point.
If something cannot come from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing.
He's been offline for 10 days, don't think he's coming back. Wouldn't bother posting anything anymore, you're going to win off of conduct anyway.
Again?
I'm not entirely confident in other video game characters, so I'll propose a new resolution. That will probably make it fairer.
YOU: So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God
ME:
The infinitely small chance of a atom being created that compresses itself and explodes to create a fully functional universe, is STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, in the form of the Bible, WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen.
YOU: No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.
ME: I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist.
YOU: Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?
Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals.
Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."
"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."
Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right.
"It is a belief system in it's own right"
Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity.
As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."
Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions.
Well, if Novice defines the meaning of property, there's no chance.
Didn't expect any positive feedback, I went to sleep thinking of myself as a terrible debater. Shame I messed this up, but failures are a learning experience.
Thanks for your thoughts.
He's a decent challenge, and much more experienced than I am. Plus, I debated this topic really badly.
Disregard. It's a concession.
Apologies. I did that to get a reaction. Forgot to turn it off.
Thank goodness, I really thought I did something wrong. Thanks for telling me.
I do believe you have won this debate easily, but we shall wait to see.
Wow.
I believe a vote for a debate of this caliber is unreasonable and unjustified. Consider posting an RFD for your reasoning.
Me and RM decided to agree on semantics, so that’s not a problem.
Please consider voting, I don’t want to tie for a topic I believe I thoroughly won.
I accept your concession. I would like to do this debate again. I have a query though. Why don’t we just expand it for the February tournament, instead of for its own sake?
FOR ANYONE WHO'S UNCLEAR ON VOTING, THE TOPIC IS
THBT COVID-19 was made naturally
PRO: Covid was made naturally.
CON: Covid was made in a lab.
I’m willing to debate that. Accept.
Try a non semantic topic, and I'm game.
Don't try that on me. I know "man" is a singular word, and the resolution is flawed. I refuse that.
When people look at this debate, they think of this definition:
each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
By tricking them to accepting this debate without knowledge this is not the case, that is viewed as a trap.
I won't vote too harshly for your semantics... just know this strategy can be beaten by a person good enough.
Ohhhhhhhh. I'll fix it.
I'm willing to do that... but don't accept yet. I want to see if there is any other people who would like to present a topic.
I couldn't hold that argument as PRO. Some things need to be censored.
.....