@Savant think you for voting and your reflection point, this assists me greatly in learning the format of great debate, I hope to use this knowledge against you one day as a tip of the hat before the showdown at high noon
@Slainte; great debate, I think I was thoroughly demolished at the end there, but I'm sure the questions I've raise will entertain those with questions about the landings, its human instinct to run down a rabbit hole in search of a hearty stew so what next, was 911 real? Tower 7? of the deep state swamp are frogs really gay? al leave it to you
I don't truly know, my argument is pined on suspicion of why their is credible gaps and inconsistences in the official story, I need more evidence to slide to a side, id say the Chinese will deliver answers soon enough, then again we are entering the generation of AI so maybe its to late for the truth on the matter to come in to existence in a truly verifiable way anymore. its an interesting subject, those testimonies are what initially shook me, and are the hardest part to overcome for me.
being a proud pacifist id be interested on you take of Obama having attained a Nobel piece prize given that pacifist tend to be the electoral council from which Nobel peace prizes entry's are decided. Could Obama be considered a pacifist?
i expect to have responded to your opening setup and points within the next 8 hours or so. i am fresh out of a round of debating the moon landings, its been a pretty intensive session over there.
I was about to say that this was the only issue I had with the argument set up you presented but you have beaten me to it. I am looking forward to this one it is a topic I enjoy exploring very much. if you don't mind i am going to physically use the text layout of your argument setup as a way for me to place my responses to each point visually underneath the points you have out lined in it. i apologise if this is amateurish, but it helps me make my points clearly showing what i am responding too in a coherent structure. i apricate your use of this framing for the arguments structure and am seeking to actively learn how to apply it with in my own argument structure.
One, two, three, up a tree
lightening strikes are met with glee
High as a kite, filled with delight this man ain't engaging in no fight or flight
His brain rewiring under the influence of that pure Psilocybin
just chilling in a tree vibin as his brother lost to the shrooms too enters hiding
The king of this tree, and all he can see his world just took on new meaning
new healing new feeling ... a new version of free!
I'm the king of the world he shouts with no fear drowning,
ice cold waves pass over him as his ego begins howling
This lost dog will one day find shelter
in a world of expertise more akin to a smelter
A boil over of thought unleashed
the law pressing down with all the viciousness of the beast
This little mushroom man wont go quietly in to the night
he's no side kick he's no sprite
he's a man of action a man of delight
with Rogan as a conduit and millions of views as a spotlight
its Paul Stamets time to shine brighter than a flame in pitch dark of the night.
with his hand made hat of amadou, critics calling him a woo woo
Paul fights on to present his knowledge to the whos who
were ever they may find themselves on this planet of
Sir.Lancelot only if you don't mind can you explain how one would achieve the 'qualification to participate in rated debates' or vote on debates on site?
this is true while Mein Kampf's subject mater may not be palatable to most it is important that a lesson is learned, this cant be done without reference material exposing the truth. Mein Kampf like it or not was a truth for the Germans that used it as a manual. it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time before it has the time to become another ugly truth about humanities nature.
Surly a definition of enslavement would have brought a swift end to this debate;
- Slave: a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.
- Contradiction: a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
A Prisoner meets the requirement to be defined as a slave, they are imprisoned by 'force' made to 'work' and 'considered property' of the state until their release. it is a contradiction to be Anti 'All' Forms of slavery and at the same time pro imprisonment.
I would like to debate you with the understanding I am a beginner and may require assistance from time to time. just navigation and things, i can formulate a good argument for Parents being allowed to ban books
I would take the side of Parents being allowed to ban books
Evolution and God are quite simple here it is: At the beginning of life a human is a single cell, imagine the size you are now and know that science says you where once a single cell, so small a microscope was required to view you. Now within that single cell is a Nucleus surrounding a single strand of DNA. That single strand of DNA, which is barely visible on a microscope contains a blueprint, the blueprint is for how to build a full size human being. Its an 18 year build project, that creates your body, organs, 5 senses and a brain to interpret them with that allows you to experience the world around you and all of its joys and pains.
If the Arrow of time is followed backwards to the beginning of life itself, you find that same single cell that started it all, the ability of the single cell to produce a human is conducted via a process of duplication known as mitosis. During this process the cell can produce and exact duplicate of it self including the DNA strand with the blueprint to build a lifeform. Within all living cells there is a DNA strand, All living cells had to have a start point, that start point had to be the first living cell to ever exist. That first living cells first decision was to build a wall around it self known as a cell wall, a wall is for protection so this would have been a decision for survivability, the second was to replicate itself the third was to replicate it self again we know this is truth as mitosis is the method by which all living organisms build copies of themselves. It is by this process we all exist. Like everything in existence we all have a start point and its always a lot smaller than it ends up being.
From that first cell came all of life, every single cell of life today has a copy of that original DNA strand as via mitosis an exact copy was made, sure its evolved different traits and forms over time but its still the shape of a DNA helix it still functions in the same way. The first ever conscious decision was to survive the second was to thrive, and this is imprinted upon every DNA in existence, every single living life form follows these instructions. That first cell expanded itself in to every form of life we see today, if we imagine life as a single organism we begin to find God, God is all of life, God is that source cell, whether we survive or not life goes on God is eternal because life is eternal
A its a miracle in it self that something as small as a single cell evolves in to a human being, let alone that all of life evolved from a single source cell. If we truly believe as many religious texts preach that God is within us, then the evidence for this is the shear creative power and prowess of a single strand of source DNA, we have that single source to thank for every thing we see and experience around us, that single decision to survive. Before the earth existed, before life existed... it didn't exist! Before existence existed ... It didn't exist, To Spring in to existence randomly is meaningless, to choose existence is GOD. If everything can come from nothing miracle has occurred, we are part of everything, if you believe in nothing you still believe in God because everything came from nothing, before everything there was nothing, if Nothing is Alpha and Something is Omega God is both the Alpha and the Omega as that first cell defeated nothing to give us everything.
apologies I was in attendance at wedding and missed this debate i hope to not miss the next and concede to some great points raised.
I'm Sorry
@Savant think you for voting and your reflection point, this assists me greatly in learning the format of great debate, I hope to use this knowledge against you one day as a tip of the hat before the showdown at high noon
@Slainte; great debate, I think I was thoroughly demolished at the end there, but I'm sure the questions I've raise will entertain those with questions about the landings, its human instinct to run down a rabbit hole in search of a hearty stew so what next, was 911 real? Tower 7? of the deep state swamp are frogs really gay? al leave it to you
I don't truly know, my argument is pined on suspicion of why their is credible gaps and inconsistences in the official story, I need more evidence to slide to a side, id say the Chinese will deliver answers soon enough, then again we are entering the generation of AI so maybe its to late for the truth on the matter to come in to existence in a truly verifiable way anymore. its an interesting subject, those testimonies are what initially shook me, and are the hardest part to overcome for me.
Surely an insurrection would have had to have occurred for Trump to be responsible.
being a proud pacifist id be interested on you take of Obama having attained a Nobel piece prize given that pacifist tend to be the electoral council from which Nobel peace prizes entry's are decided. Could Obama be considered a pacifist?
i expect to have responded to your opening setup and points within the next 8 hours or so. i am fresh out of a round of debating the moon landings, its been a pretty intensive session over there.
I was about to say that this was the only issue I had with the argument set up you presented but you have beaten me to it. I am looking forward to this one it is a topic I enjoy exploring very much. if you don't mind i am going to physically use the text layout of your argument setup as a way for me to place my responses to each point visually underneath the points you have out lined in it. i apologise if this is amateurish, but it helps me make my points clearly showing what i am responding too in a coherent structure. i apricate your use of this framing for the arguments structure and am seeking to actively learn how to apply it with in my own argument structure.
One, two, three, up a tree
lightening strikes are met with glee
High as a kite, filled with delight this man ain't engaging in no fight or flight
His brain rewiring under the influence of that pure Psilocybin
just chilling in a tree vibin as his brother lost to the shrooms too enters hiding
The king of this tree, and all he can see his world just took on new meaning
new healing new feeling ... a new version of free!
I'm the king of the world he shouts with no fear drowning,
ice cold waves pass over him as his ego begins howling
This lost dog will one day find shelter
in a world of expertise more akin to a smelter
A boil over of thought unleashed
the law pressing down with all the viciousness of the beast
This little mushroom man wont go quietly in to the night
he's no side kick he's no sprite
he's a man of action a man of delight
with Rogan as a conduit and millions of views as a spotlight
its Paul Stamets time to shine brighter than a flame in pitch dark of the night.
with his hand made hat of amadou, critics calling him a woo woo
Paul fights on to present his knowledge to the whos who
were ever they may find themselves on this planet of
deep...
... unforgiving ...
... blue!
Sir.Lancelot only if you don't mind can you explain how one would achieve the 'qualification to participate in rated debates' or vote on debates on site?
this is true while Mein Kampf's subject mater may not be palatable to most it is important that a lesson is learned, this cant be done without reference material exposing the truth. Mein Kampf like it or not was a truth for the Germans that used it as a manual. it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time before it has the time to become another ugly truth about humanities nature.
2021 may have landed a robot on the moon but did 1950s man land a man a full size buggy and some golf clubs on the moon? lets get real here
The difference between a prisoner and captive is the elements of work and property ownerships
Great, I'm looking forward to this, I think this site is exactly the space I've been looking for.
Surly a definition of enslavement would have brought a swift end to this debate;
- Slave: a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.
- Contradiction: a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
A Prisoner meets the requirement to be defined as a slave, they are imprisoned by 'force' made to 'work' and 'considered property' of the state until their release. it is a contradiction to be Anti 'All' Forms of slavery and at the same time pro imprisonment.
for us to begin you must go first, this is correct?
you too my friend
I would like to debate you with the understanding I am a beginner and may require assistance from time to time. just navigation and things, i can formulate a good argument for Parents being allowed to ban books
I would take the side of Parents being allowed to ban books
Evolution and God are quite simple here it is: At the beginning of life a human is a single cell, imagine the size you are now and know that science says you where once a single cell, so small a microscope was required to view you. Now within that single cell is a Nucleus surrounding a single strand of DNA. That single strand of DNA, which is barely visible on a microscope contains a blueprint, the blueprint is for how to build a full size human being. Its an 18 year build project, that creates your body, organs, 5 senses and a brain to interpret them with that allows you to experience the world around you and all of its joys and pains.
If the Arrow of time is followed backwards to the beginning of life itself, you find that same single cell that started it all, the ability of the single cell to produce a human is conducted via a process of duplication known as mitosis. During this process the cell can produce and exact duplicate of it self including the DNA strand with the blueprint to build a lifeform. Within all living cells there is a DNA strand, All living cells had to have a start point, that start point had to be the first living cell to ever exist. That first living cells first decision was to build a wall around it self known as a cell wall, a wall is for protection so this would have been a decision for survivability, the second was to replicate itself the third was to replicate it self again we know this is truth as mitosis is the method by which all living organisms build copies of themselves. It is by this process we all exist. Like everything in existence we all have a start point and its always a lot smaller than it ends up being.
From that first cell came all of life, every single cell of life today has a copy of that original DNA strand as via mitosis an exact copy was made, sure its evolved different traits and forms over time but its still the shape of a DNA helix it still functions in the same way. The first ever conscious decision was to survive the second was to thrive, and this is imprinted upon every DNA in existence, every single living life form follows these instructions. That first cell expanded itself in to every form of life we see today, if we imagine life as a single organism we begin to find God, God is all of life, God is that source cell, whether we survive or not life goes on God is eternal because life is eternal
A its a miracle in it self that something as small as a single cell evolves in to a human being, let alone that all of life evolved from a single source cell. If we truly believe as many religious texts preach that God is within us, then the evidence for this is the shear creative power and prowess of a single strand of source DNA, we have that single source to thank for every thing we see and experience around us, that single decision to survive. Before the earth existed, before life existed... it didn't exist! Before existence existed ... It didn't exist, To Spring in to existence randomly is meaningless, to choose existence is GOD. If everything can come from nothing miracle has occurred, we are part of everything, if you believe in nothing you still believe in God because everything came from nothing, before everything there was nothing, if Nothing is Alpha and Something is Omega God is both the Alpha and the Omega as that first cell defeated nothing to give us everything.
are you debating on the side of not allowing parents or the side of allowing parents to ban books?