"Pro must prove that the LLT is similarly as likely OR MORE likely than the SoHt while con must prove that the LLT is sufficiently/considerably less likely than the SoHt."
As a Chinese, I vehemently accept the crimes against human rights that take place in China that are documented by authentic sources(such as Xinjiang Muslim torture, etc). There is nothing good in hiding them and the act of hiding those acts(and persecuting those who speaks out)directly goes against the Chinese textbook, where, in an ideal Chinese system, the average Chinese citizen has the right to criticize authority on their crimes done to other people. The fact that China isn't trying the best to build the system they taught the masses to be a good system in the end makes me facepalm hard every time I think about it.
Your reductio ad absurdum fallacy shows that you did little research.
Do you have a doctorate and can prove, in the grounds of physics, that Einstein was wrong? No? Even if yes, it didn't seem like that you used any here.
The problem is that there are many copies of the bible that we possibly don't have the original anymore. Some versions condemns homosexuality and others don't. We could just resort that to mistranslation but they still do.
I believe Bible condones male-on-male lust, which is the equivalent of “immoral sex”, and not the entirety of homosexuality. I think that is mistranslated.
Nevertheless, we should have a good discussion over what the Bible actually is.
I wouldn’t say that it is inherently against the truth to believe in Buddhism because it just makes you a better person. Our goal in life is to seek happiness and if religious people can accept others while being happy and positive members of society, Why not?
That is different in essence. That opinion is falsifiable and is harmful to the general society. Those people who "need it" have no need to even hold on to that belief anymore.
However, religion itself doesn't harm greater society. You pray 30 minutes a day? No problem. It only becomes a problem when religious extremists become hate groups, in which their religious twists wanders far beyond what the original prophet would say, hence making their crimes of their own, not the religions'.
Although, an opinion I hold is that the religious figures would react differently, if they are present in the 20th or 21th centuries. Upholding things that are once good things to do but are frowned upon at the moment is not the problem of the religions. They just can't wrap their head around that things change and their hate is not justified by religion. 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.
We might as well define what a "bigfoot" is, since in a sense, when those bears, gorillas, or even people are identified by the public as "bigfoot", they became the bigfoot and it exists.
How is it even possible for you to lose? All you have to do is to prove 2 weaknesses of the system, no matter how big or small it is. Your description literally have your back.
Did Pro just make an elaborate argument on why systemic racism exists, which is evidence that the racist white people are TAUGHT BY THE SYSTEM then claim that it is genetics’ fault
When I search “are whites genetically racist” on the internet, it doesn’t show any relevant results, because the system believes that you are the absurd one, huh.
Your definition literally supports the Con position, unless you can prove that comprehension is included within the ability of reading and writing.
Are you there?
A good thing to be brought up, though, is if harassment of children really is severe enough to warrant death penalty.
If murder is automatically unjustified, then what about all the soldiers we placed on the frontline?
we must ascend to deity
The question is if it works... If it ain't broken don't fix it.
You need to prove another girl to be better.
Anarcho-primitivism and its consequences have been a disaster to the human society.
Well I'm glad that a very structural and wise debater approved me of my kritiking. Thanks for the compliment.
"Pro must prove that the LLT is similarly as likely OR MORE likely than the SoHt while con must prove that the LLT is sufficiently/considerably less likely than the SoHt."
The topic statement is misleading.
As a Chinese, I vehemently accept the crimes against human rights that take place in China that are documented by authentic sources(such as Xinjiang Muslim torture, etc). There is nothing good in hiding them and the act of hiding those acts(and persecuting those who speaks out)directly goes against the Chinese textbook, where, in an ideal Chinese system, the average Chinese citizen has the right to criticize authority on their crimes done to other people. The fact that China isn't trying the best to build the system they taught the masses to be a good system in the end makes me facepalm hard every time I think about it.
Your reductio ad absurdum fallacy shows that you did little research.
Do you have a doctorate and can prove, in the grounds of physics, that Einstein was wrong? No? Even if yes, it didn't seem like that you used any here.
regarding #26... I think if that is the case, you have already won.
The problem is that there are many copies of the bible that we possibly don't have the original anymore. Some versions condemns homosexuality and others don't. We could just resort that to mistranslation but they still do.
So, do they even count as the bible?
I believe Bible condones male-on-male lust, which is the equivalent of “immoral sex”, and not the entirety of homosexuality. I think that is mistranslated.
Nevertheless, we should have a good discussion over what the Bible actually is.
I wouldn’t say that it is inherently against the truth to believe in Buddhism because it just makes you a better person. Our goal in life is to seek happiness and if religious people can accept others while being happy and positive members of society, Why not?
What exactly is reality anyways?
Religion basically form traditions. Are you, as well, telling people across the world to give up their traditions to suit “your way of life”? No?
That is different in essence. That opinion is falsifiable and is harmful to the general society. Those people who "need it" have no need to even hold on to that belief anymore.
However, religion itself doesn't harm greater society. You pray 30 minutes a day? No problem. It only becomes a problem when religious extremists become hate groups, in which their religious twists wanders far beyond what the original prophet would say, hence making their crimes of their own, not the religions'.
Although, an opinion I hold is that the religious figures would react differently, if they are present in the 20th or 21th centuries. Upholding things that are once good things to do but are frowned upon at the moment is not the problem of the religions. They just can't wrap their head around that things change and their hate is not justified by religion. 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.
Some people need it, to say the 'least.
I mean, we have "Human" going against himself in the past, so I can't say.
We might as well define what a "bigfoot" is, since in a sense, when those bears, gorillas, or even people are identified by the public as "bigfoot", they became the bigfoot and it exists.
At least define what a state is. I mean, a US state is still a politically-defined piece of land.
How is it even possible for you to lose? All you have to do is to prove 2 weaknesses of the system, no matter how big or small it is. Your description literally have your back.
I will take this if no one does in 2-3 days.
Well, without Kritik I am basically screwed.
Are they justified putting atom bombs in Japan? I think yes.
Do they have better methods? I think yes.
Freeing people from this eternal suffering they believe that is the war nets in positivity.
I believe I have an existing counter for that in the debate I had before about the same topic against Caleber.
Concession vs FF. Which one wins?
Also you are the driver who can turn sans the track operator. You are in control here, except that you can't stop it.
Fast and heavy enough to kill people. Also fast and heavy enough to meet local law requirements so that it is classified as public transport.
2.5 hours bump
Yes.
I believe this is a truism: nothing is without flaws. However, we should debate whether if we need to keep it.
Vote? 1 day left
Nope. Monopoly.
Chess unreliable represents war in the past that doesn’t make sense now because we have tanks and stuff.
Monopoly actually represents normal-day capitalism. At least better than Chess representing anything.
Bump
Did Pro just make an elaborate argument on why systemic racism exists, which is evidence that the racist white people are TAUGHT BY THE SYSTEM then claim that it is genetics’ fault
When I search “are whites genetically racist” on the internet, it doesn’t show any relevant results, because the system believes that you are the absurd one, huh.
wake up
“Walking talking dictionary”
To be fair, any crippled or mute person would win this if he gives his medical proof.
Not only is he not a dictionary, he isn’t even walking talking.
Bump
Bump
Bump, vote please
We can make an infinite amount of gods and religions, but somehow, this one is more likely than every other one.
Have fun with your flashy sword duels. I am sticking with the simple stab to the nape.
Why? it is effective.
Just watched Green book.
Or, as we put it here straightforwardly, still a nope.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moral%20Inferiors
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moral%20Inferiors
Those aren't even essays when you consider Oro's serious arguments.
This is a truism lol
Because it is DebateArt, not Twitter.