Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
". Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while." #7 (In reply to the user WYLTED 's comment that can not be currently mentioned due to not being online currently)
If by this part of the comment you mean "Everyone already knows that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while"
then I'd disagree. Boil by Oxford definitions as a verb means "(with reference to a liquid) reach or cause to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" and this definition gives off a different idea from this part of the comment that you have written.
A boil can be defined as "reach to reach the temperate at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" if you're referring to a liquid, especially when you're referring to water since it is a liquid.
This, however, can only be imagined as temperature not involving time in order to boil but rather to have time to boil temperature(This isn't exactly relevant to having the definition of boil, but it is an explanation).
It is not when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat for a while. It is when the water reaches the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor (which doesn't exactly state the time or such, because when defining "boil" as a verb in the Oxford definition mentioning the period is not necessary).
Even the definition of boil as a noun "the temperature at which a liquid bubbles and turns to vapor" also does not mention the period within. It's just not exactly necessary to have within this definition, perhaps you may be confusing something else for "boil" which is why as a result, you weren't referring to the definition "boil" and you may be referring to something else. I presume is because of sociolinguistic reasons in general, those sociolinguistic reasons can include.. people who set that definition to be, and it's probably because of how those people consider the definition of "boil" as well as how they consider its origins that are generally considered by people. This general consideration can have those professionals who have professions that also include "temperature" in relevance, especially the professionals who have thermodynamics as a profession, especially the professionals who have chemistry as a profession.
I'm providing this clarification because it is important to recognize the difference between things, especially words. Mistaking the recognition of the difference of a thing will improperly deliver your means and expressively "ruin the equation and force you to start the equation again". Not only that, but it will bring upon misconceptions when using the word "boil" incorrectly or unsuitably.
I believe that the term "ranking" should've been used in the description instead of the term "rank" because it fits the definitions much better and flow better when in comparison. The word "Highest" is already a word that also indicates relevancy to the word "comparison" and that is because if "highest" is used as a superlative adjective as defined by "great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity." then the word is used when compared to things or objects in space and time due to the fact that superlative adjectives are also used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). Superlative adjectives are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.
"The game isn't a form of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason, it's merely a display of that and perhaps exercise that can stimulate the brain for that."
I don't think that the game is only a display of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason, but rather a game of skill and experience. Chess is primarily a display of skill and experience.
Only because a considerable reason is not found in evidence, does not mean that there is no reason to believe in God. Reason does not only come from evidence.
Unnecessary, the argument of mine at last is no longer necessary to reply to or argue against, it's already been filled in and it's pretty much provided in explicit information.
In fact, how is "Jesus is God" a verbatim anyways? I can not find "Jesus is God" anywhere in the bible, so judging it based on "in exactly the same words as were used originally." oxford definitions, "Jesus is God", had not been found by me in the bible. If "Jesus is God" in exactly the same words as were used originally, then why I can't I find the exact same words as they were used originally in the bible itself? It's just ridiculous.
It's not the situation that you've created, it's the situation that you've created when it deals with reality or logic. It instantly becomes subjective.
There are missing words in my argument by the way, the person who created the debate limited the number of letters hence I couldn't add those certain words that are also necessary in my argument.. so I'm going to clarify certain words that I couldn't clarify or the certain words that I couldn't clarify entirely:
For this part of my argument: "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is entirely true. "
The correct sentence is "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is NOT entirely true."
This "mistake" can of course be clarified by common sense, so it should be clear that there is a fault in it.
Note that, in my perspective, there is actually more to my arguments than it already looks, it's just that the number of letters do not support the quantity of information that I wanted to put in my arguments.
"There is nothing with murder" and "Murder is permissible" are two different concepts with two different meanings emphasizing how complex their connection is as well.
You are not making logical sense.
"translates" by definition means "express the sense of (words or text) in another language."
You are using English translating it into English, hence you are not expressing the sense of the words or texts in another language, you are expressing the sense of the words or texts in the same language but not as it should logically follow.
Your concern doesn't exactly follow the topic itself; the topic is very generic, making most or all conclusions about the topic possibly fallacious continuously.
Disregarding the concern following the topic itself (a case itself in the point), homosexuality is still being researched and no one exactly knows what is wrong or right about it "in and of itself".
If Capitalism is more used than socialism or communism then Capitalism has a realistic advantage over them both; Capitalism is superior to socialism or communism.
Ambiguity exists because of people.. that is what we can say. Ambiguity can cease to exist.. when all people accept one interpretation and no more, but can any one with the will power do such a thing or are they incapable of doing such a thing?
For homosexuality, including activities that involves homosexual activities:
This is pretty much unacceptable in most countries or some countries considered generally; most or some countries can account for 90% or 40% or somewhat other percentiles of the countries that currently exist.
So there is something wrong with homosexuality, if you make something wrong with homosexuality which in conclusion can mean that there are places that homosexuality is wrong or acceptable. Either way, this subject is going to be very.. subjective.
"If you are eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time, are you eating chicken soup or drinking chicken nuggets."
Neither, I'd be eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time if I am eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time...
"I assume that's what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical."
That is generally absurd, part of illogical being part of logic doesn't necessarily determinate whether if a thing is a thing or whether if a thing is not a thing, these patterns are not entirely deterministic of the certain situation you're implying, unless if the opponent manifests his own patterns that are entirely deterministic.
By the way, I made a typo in comment #1," can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent"
The correct phrase is "can mean that "illogical" does have logic but to a limiting extent"
"The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic."
If you are arguing with semantics, then here are definitions to argue with as well:
characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "logical" from Oxford's languages)
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "illogical" from Oxford's languages)
If the meaning of something being illogical is separate from logic, then the meaning of something being illogical can be considered illogical.
Illogical means lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning, it does not mean that something does not have sense or clear or sound reasoning, but rather means that it has a lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.. which in conclusion can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent that limiting extent can be the considered "lacking".
Regardless, concluding whether if it is "outside of logic" or "separate from logic" can be a little vague, but judging from this level of vagueness, the term "illogical" can be considered "separate from logic" since "logic" and "illogical" are separate from each other. Their definitions is also what differentiates them, allowing them to be "separate from each other".
In total conclusion, "illogical" is also separate from "logic", semantically argued.
Let me make this explanation short and as understandable as possible depending on how much effort I put into it:
You must understand the situation here-- in addition to the situation:
You have created a relationship between moral theory and the real world conditions (creating any relationship between real world condition reflects the real world, to explain this expressively, you are "calling" out to the real world, or in other terms.. "the real world conditions" or "the real world condition" is a part of the real world, the part of the world itself has components that align with the rules necessary enough to be a part of the real world), you also have created a relationship between your argument and the real world, and all of these relationships created a contribution to the real world as well.
And this alone creates a fallacy when it comes to establishing a relationship between your argument and the real world, the reason is because of what your argument contains, what your argument contains is not relevant to the real world nor is it relevant in the real world regardless whether if it is a theory or not, a theory also has a place as a part of the real world.. The relevancy of how much moral theory matters as a part of the real world does not matter as much as how much the English matters as a part of the real world, specifically the point I've made is also supported by linguistics as well, and don't get me started on how many works of people should also support the point I've made, which also includes the reason I've made previously.
In addition to this explanation.. the point I've made is logical and your argument that you have made appears mostly illogical, or perhaps is also mostly illogical. You could say that the point I've made is more connected to the real world more than the argument you've made, and the reason for that you could say is because of the amount of evidence that supports the point I've made, by also considering what the definition of logic is itself.
In another addition to this explanation.. you could also say that my point weighs more logic than your argument.. due to how connected it also is when it comes to concluding how "ought to" does not equal "will do".
You simply need to consider what matters when you're establishing connections between things, including establishing a connection between the real world.
(Trust me on this part, I know how much I'm capable of establishing connections between things, Including verbal associations).
In addition to your argument, I see that you are establishing a relationship between the real world conditions (which includes part of the "real world", reflecting "the real world") and the assessment of moral theory.. and you are also establishing a relationship between your argument and the real world.
If you do any of these establish this relationship, judging by your argument, I can conclude it a fallacy..
The reason is, "ought to" does not equal "will do", especially if you think that in a case like yours "ought to" equals "will do"..
Establishing relationships between the real world
with anything especially anything within human comprehension can be entirely difficult, if you are not aware of this. This in addition can be due to a result of multiple natural mechanisms (the laws of physics or pure logic acting "against" each other; this is an example set for you to understand what I mean and what this reason means as well) and more than one or more components of the real world.
But to explain this even more relevant to the case, "ought to" does not equal "will do" due to multiple reasons, which includes the language we ourselves are using in this current moment.. usually called "English".. and "English" has it's own fundamental usage that also applies to anything written by the English language.
My point is that, "ought to" does not equal "will do".
I mean, sure.. your argument makes sense, illogically as well. But I don't think that your argument makes enough sense to even be considered logical.
My bad, I've done multiple typos in round 2, try to ignore it.
Apart from the typos, everything should be as it is..
Note that everything relevant within the argument that you need to find in my argument-- should be there in my argument.
For some reason, Savant has a jedi-supported forcefield around his votes.. the "council of debaters" have gathered around the pearl that Savant lies within.. his jedi-supported forcefield around his votes that he has always specified or almost always specified.. allows him to empower the "debate ratio force" up to maximum potential.. leaving Savant.. invincible.
Let me put this as a side note:
The comments I have written here are not meant to be disrespectful, but rather.. satire and ironic in general.
I had listed that as a side note, because I don't want to be assumed of being disrespectful in any way.. especially to be assumed of being disrespectful by also getting assumed of being pedantic.. that awfully "accompanies" the "disrespectful" behavior at certain times.
This debate almost gave me a stroke that would've sent me to the deepest depths of hell due the intrusively violent and derogatory thoughts that I had towards how crazy this debate is.
The amount of logical consistency that this debate lacks is very very high, in fact.
The debate seems to me that Best.Korea is logically forcing Savant to ride his flaming "Circular logic" warding.
Point is that Best.Korea is making more logical sense than Savant in this debate.
I have just surfed the Quran and searched for a surah that supports the idea of not speaking ill of Allah.. and I couldn't actually find any. I suppose that you may be allowed to speak such words of Allah.
You were doing a great job at merely insulting Allah and the prophet Muhammad.. I just also hope that nothing gets blown away here.. if you know what I mean.. you have to watch out for your account now.. he "@" the mods. They're probably gonna.. blow the Islamic talk out. I mean.. out of here.
"Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
There's a bit of logical inconsistency here that I should point out..
"Quran came from Allah's ass" and "Allah is a pig" and "Quran came from pig's ass"
For here, Since Allah is a pig.. therefore, Quran came from a pig's ass" not "Quran came from pig's ass"... due to "Allah is a pig" as written..
and to provide additional explanation:
"Allah is pig" does not equal "Allah is a pig"
Understand that your war of words do not have any significant value in this world.. for your war has no meaning except the act of wasting time not for your own improvement.. but for your own enjoyment.
Best.Korea is fun to have around. His humour definitely has supported those who are under extreme stress. Best.Korea radiates potential.
Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
". Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while." #7 (In reply to the user WYLTED 's comment that can not be currently mentioned due to not being online currently)
If by this part of the comment you mean "Everyone already knows that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while"
then I'd disagree. Boil by Oxford definitions as a verb means "(with reference to a liquid) reach or cause to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" and this definition gives off a different idea from this part of the comment that you have written.
A boil can be defined as "reach to reach the temperate at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" if you're referring to a liquid, especially when you're referring to water since it is a liquid.
This, however, can only be imagined as temperature not involving time in order to boil but rather to have time to boil temperature(This isn't exactly relevant to having the definition of boil, but it is an explanation).
It is not when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat for a while. It is when the water reaches the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor (which doesn't exactly state the time or such, because when defining "boil" as a verb in the Oxford definition mentioning the period is not necessary).
Even the definition of boil as a noun "the temperature at which a liquid bubbles and turns to vapor" also does not mention the period within. It's just not exactly necessary to have within this definition, perhaps you may be confusing something else for "boil" which is why as a result, you weren't referring to the definition "boil" and you may be referring to something else. I presume is because of sociolinguistic reasons in general, those sociolinguistic reasons can include.. people who set that definition to be, and it's probably because of how those people consider the definition of "boil" as well as how they consider its origins that are generally considered by people. This general consideration can have those professionals who have professions that also include "temperature" in relevance, especially the professionals who have thermodynamics as a profession, especially the professionals who have chemistry as a profession.
I'm providing this clarification because it is important to recognize the difference between things, especially words. Mistaking the recognition of the difference of a thing will improperly deliver your means and expressively "ruin the equation and force you to start the equation again". Not only that, but it will bring upon misconceptions when using the word "boil" incorrectly or unsuitably.
I believe that the term "ranking" should've been used in the description instead of the term "rank" because it fits the definitions much better and flow better when in comparison. The word "Highest" is already a word that also indicates relevancy to the word "comparison" and that is because if "highest" is used as a superlative adjective as defined by "great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity." then the word is used when compared to things or objects in space and time due to the fact that superlative adjectives are also used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). Superlative adjectives are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.
"The game isn't a form of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason, it's merely a display of that and perhaps exercise that can stimulate the brain for that."
I don't think that the game is only a display of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason, but rather a game of skill and experience. Chess is primarily a display of skill and experience.
Only because a considerable reason is not found in evidence, does not mean that there is no reason to believe in God. Reason does not only come from evidence.
Unnecessary, the argument of mine at last is no longer necessary to reply to or argue against, it's already been filled in and it's pretty much provided in explicit information.
In fact, how is "Jesus is God" a verbatim anyways? I can not find "Jesus is God" anywhere in the bible, so judging it based on "in exactly the same words as were used originally." oxford definitions, "Jesus is God", had not been found by me in the bible. If "Jesus is God" in exactly the same words as were used originally, then why I can't I find the exact same words as they were used originally in the bible itself? It's just ridiculous.
" My stove IS gas."
Here you are equalizing two different phases of matter, plus, when was that ever used originally? How is this a verbatim?
FYI, your arguments contain some ridiculous crap.
Yeah, I couldn't make it to the last round.
It's not the situation that you've created, it's the situation that you've created when it deals with reality or logic. It instantly becomes subjective.
There are missing words in my argument by the way, the person who created the debate limited the number of letters hence I couldn't add those certain words that are also necessary in my argument.. so I'm going to clarify certain words that I couldn't clarify or the certain words that I couldn't clarify entirely:
For this part of my argument: "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is entirely true. "
The correct sentence is "you're pointing out that all people with extrapolated reasoning abilities believe in God when that is NOT entirely true."
This "mistake" can of course be clarified by common sense, so it should be clear that there is a fault in it.
Don't make it circular now, it is only circular when you make it circular.
Note that, in my perspective, there is actually more to my arguments than it already looks, it's just that the number of letters do not support the quantity of information that I wanted to put in my arguments.
Why is the number of letters very limited?
"There is nothing with murder" and "Murder is permissible" are two different concepts with two different meanings emphasizing how complex their connection is as well.
You are not making logical sense.
"translates" by definition means "express the sense of (words or text) in another language."
You are using English translating it into English, hence you are not expressing the sense of the words or texts in another language, you are expressing the sense of the words or texts in the same language but not as it should logically follow.
Your concern doesn't exactly follow the topic itself; the topic is very generic, making most or all conclusions about the topic possibly fallacious continuously.
Disregarding the concern following the topic itself (a case itself in the point), homosexuality is still being researched and no one exactly knows what is wrong or right about it "in and of itself".
If Capitalism is more used than socialism or communism then Capitalism has a realistic advantage over them both; Capitalism is superior to socialism or communism.
This debate is too subjective, I do not have spare time to argue for a matter that is too subjective.
Typo in #5: " ..that homosexuality is wrong or acceptable."
Correct form: "..that homosexuality is wrong or unacceptable."
Ambiguity exists because of people.. that is what we can say. Ambiguity can cease to exist.. when all people accept one interpretation and no more, but can any one with the will power do such a thing or are they incapable of doing such a thing?
For homosexuality, including activities that involves homosexual activities:
This is pretty much unacceptable in most countries or some countries considered generally; most or some countries can account for 90% or 40% or somewhat other percentiles of the countries that currently exist.
So there is something wrong with homosexuality, if you make something wrong with homosexuality which in conclusion can mean that there are places that homosexuality is wrong or acceptable. Either way, this subject is going to be very.. subjective.
"How would you convince an atheist the spirit of God exists? You could."
Who "could", depends entirely on who could do it.
"If you are eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time, are you eating chicken soup or drinking chicken nuggets."
Neither, I'd be eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time if I am eating chicken nuggets and drinking chicken soup at the same time...
"I assume that's what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical."
That is generally absurd, part of illogical being part of logic doesn't necessarily determinate whether if a thing is a thing or whether if a thing is not a thing, these patterns are not entirely deterministic of the certain situation you're implying, unless if the opponent manifests his own patterns that are entirely deterministic.
I understand.
By the way, I made a typo in comment #1," can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent"
The correct phrase is "can mean that "illogical" does have logic but to a limiting extent"
"The names and labels people give us are a part of our identities"
If something is a part of us, why does it then have to be given to us when we already should have it?
Perhaps those names and labels were never a part of us, all those names and labels are all that the people had given us, nothing more.
"The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic."
If you are arguing with semantics, then here are definitions to argue with as well:
characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "logical" from Oxford's languages)
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "illogical" from Oxford's languages)
If the meaning of something being illogical is separate from logic, then the meaning of something being illogical can be considered illogical.
Illogical means lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning, it does not mean that something does not have sense or clear or sound reasoning, but rather means that it has a lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.. which in conclusion can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent that limiting extent can be the considered "lacking".
Regardless, concluding whether if it is "outside of logic" or "separate from logic" can be a little vague, but judging from this level of vagueness, the term "illogical" can be considered "separate from logic" since "logic" and "illogical" are separate from each other. Their definitions is also what differentiates them, allowing them to be "separate from each other".
In total conclusion, "illogical" is also separate from "logic", semantically argued.
Isn't this a bit too much for Mall?
To be honest, what caught my attention is "This reasoning is circular." ~ Math_Enthusiast
What is this? I don't even know, I have searched for the word "reasoning" in every dictionary.. and I can not find "circular" for what reasoning is..
Let me make this explanation short and as understandable as possible depending on how much effort I put into it:
You must understand the situation here-- in addition to the situation:
You have created a relationship between moral theory and the real world conditions (creating any relationship between real world condition reflects the real world, to explain this expressively, you are "calling" out to the real world, or in other terms.. "the real world conditions" or "the real world condition" is a part of the real world, the part of the world itself has components that align with the rules necessary enough to be a part of the real world), you also have created a relationship between your argument and the real world, and all of these relationships created a contribution to the real world as well.
And this alone creates a fallacy when it comes to establishing a relationship between your argument and the real world, the reason is because of what your argument contains, what your argument contains is not relevant to the real world nor is it relevant in the real world regardless whether if it is a theory or not, a theory also has a place as a part of the real world.. The relevancy of how much moral theory matters as a part of the real world does not matter as much as how much the English matters as a part of the real world, specifically the point I've made is also supported by linguistics as well, and don't get me started on how many works of people should also support the point I've made, which also includes the reason I've made previously.
In addition to this explanation.. the point I've made is logical and your argument that you have made appears mostly illogical, or perhaps is also mostly illogical. You could say that the point I've made is more connected to the real world more than the argument you've made, and the reason for that you could say is because of the amount of evidence that supports the point I've made, by also considering what the definition of logic is itself.
In another addition to this explanation.. you could also say that my point weighs more logic than your argument.. due to how connected it also is when it comes to concluding how "ought to" does not equal "will do".
You simply need to consider what matters when you're establishing connections between things, including establishing a connection between the real world.
(Trust me on this part, I know how much I'm capable of establishing connections between things, Including verbal associations).
In addition to your argument, I see that you are establishing a relationship between the real world conditions (which includes part of the "real world", reflecting "the real world") and the assessment of moral theory.. and you are also establishing a relationship between your argument and the real world.
If you do any of these establish this relationship, judging by your argument, I can conclude it a fallacy..
The reason is, "ought to" does not equal "will do", especially if you think that in a case like yours "ought to" equals "will do"..
Establishing relationships between the real world
with anything especially anything within human comprehension can be entirely difficult, if you are not aware of this. This in addition can be due to a result of multiple natural mechanisms (the laws of physics or pure logic acting "against" each other; this is an example set for you to understand what I mean and what this reason means as well) and more than one or more components of the real world.
But to explain this even more relevant to the case, "ought to" does not equal "will do" due to multiple reasons, which includes the language we ourselves are using in this current moment.. usually called "English".. and "English" has it's own fundamental usage that also applies to anything written by the English language.
My point is that, "ought to" does not equal "will do".
I mean, sure.. your argument makes sense, illogically as well. But I don't think that your argument makes enough sense to even be considered logical.
My bad, I've done multiple typos in round 2, try to ignore it.
Apart from the typos, everything should be as it is..
Note that everything relevant within the argument that you need to find in my argument-- should be there in my argument.
The current vote can be considered something to complain about. It reveals ideas about the debate as well.
You could write that you were verbose in the "vote" section. It's very established, not very constructive.
Yapping going hard for real.
The problem that I have got from "whiteflame's vote" is the yapathon you've created.
I have stated it.
For some reason, Savant has a jedi-supported forcefield around his votes.. the "council of debaters" have gathered around the pearl that Savant lies within.. his jedi-supported forcefield around his votes that he has always specified or almost always specified.. allows him to empower the "debate ratio force" up to maximum potential.. leaving Savant.. invincible.
Whiteflame appears to have professionally created a yapping documentary within the "votes" section.
Let me put this as a side note:
The comments I have written here are not meant to be disrespectful, but rather.. satire and ironic in general.
I had listed that as a side note, because I don't want to be assumed of being disrespectful in any way.. especially to be assumed of being disrespectful by also getting assumed of being pedantic.. that awfully "accompanies" the "disrespectful" behavior at certain times.
This debate almost gave me a stroke that would've sent me to the deepest depths of hell due the intrusively violent and derogatory thoughts that I had towards how crazy this debate is.
The amount of logical consistency that this debate lacks is very very high, in fact.
The debate seems to me that Best.Korea is logically forcing Savant to ride his flaming "Circular logic" warding.
Point is that Best.Korea is making more logical sense than Savant in this debate.
Are most debaters on here lawyers? I can't stop finding a crap amount of debates that have a relevant relationship to law and crime in general.
I have just surfed the Quran and searched for a surah that supports the idea of not speaking ill of Allah.. and I couldn't actually find any. I suppose that you may be allowed to speak such words of Allah.
You were doing a great job at merely insulting Allah and the prophet Muhammad.. I just also hope that nothing gets blown away here.. if you know what I mean.. you have to watch out for your account now.. he "@" the mods. They're probably gonna.. blow the Islamic talk out. I mean.. out of here.
Bist du facist?
You're behaving like a fascist whenever someone throws yahtzee turd crap at the furher.
"Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
There's a bit of logical inconsistency here that I should point out..
"Quran came from Allah's ass" and "Allah is a pig" and "Quran came from pig's ass"
For here, Since Allah is a pig.. therefore, Quran came from a pig's ass" not "Quran came from pig's ass"... due to "Allah is a pig" as written..
and to provide additional explanation:
"Allah is pig" does not equal "Allah is a pig"
Understand that your war of words do not have any significant value in this world.. for your war has no meaning except the act of wasting time not for your own improvement.. but for your own enjoyment.