If you've ever wondered what jealousy looks like in text form...
"We must expose this semantics abuser every debate he makes so even when we die his kind of pseudo-debater don't get the winrate and rating that proper debaters earn and deserve."
Can god therefore make a device to help him fly?
Humans can.
God cannot fly either.
Being that god is superior to both gravity and air resistance, god cannot be susceptible to either force.
Well, that's what the power to fly is.
To admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air.
He's right.
If you care about keeping this site high quality, just post your suggestions about the site here.
Maybe we should have a voter's union, or maybe there should be stronger moderation...whatever it is, put your suggestion here.
Keep bumping the debate by making up crap about my record.
I had over 30 debates, not forfeited, voted on by legit voters, whtieflame mostly, that I won without "moving goalposts"
I'm just a good debater, give props son.
Ugh.
You guys are so hellbent on thinking that all of my debates are counter intuitive, but I have tons of debates that are not like that.
This debate is as it seems, there is nothing fallacious that I'd be arguing, take the debate and see.
No, oxford defines being as an existence and they define an existence as something that exists.
I was told to show both by one of the people in the comments, so I did.
It's totally possible to disprove.
Accept and see if you can.
This is not directed toward anyone, despite its direct relevance, but the idea of some psychological dependence being a proof for god in this debate is incorrect.
All is there in the definitions; if you don't like the definitions or the rules, then don't accept.
Well actually I was highlighting that your grammar and spelling hindered the understanding of your posts, even when I put perfectly unambiguous terms in the place of the ambiguous terms you used.
There was question about whether or not grammar affected Pro's performance; it did.
So if The Peanut Butter of a Sandwich is Flavor, and with The Jelly of Flavor we know a Sandwich through this Peanut Butter, what does that mean? It means that a Sandwich is FLAVOR AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity: The Peanut Butter, The Jelly, The Sandwich.
Well this is not replying to anyone specific, though it may seem directly relevant to things that have been posted here, I assure you it is not, but if Con were to have shown how the japanese are not in the east then why didn't the voter mention that?
Hey person I just first talked to in the comments section of my debate on Conifers being superior organisms to humans.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your vote and explain how Con showed that the Japanese don't experience sunsets...
"The premise of this debate is flawed from the start"
Hey someone I've never talked to before.
Why do you think that?
"The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. "
Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?
"An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species"
Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms.
"How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal"
By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?
"It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done."
Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous.
Watch the debate.
You should definitely take the debate
If you've ever wondered what jealousy looks like in text form...
"We must expose this semantics abuser every debate he makes so even when we die his kind of pseudo-debater don't get the winrate and rating that proper debaters earn and deserve."
B to the U to the M to the P, come on atheists!
You need god!
"1)There is nothing that God can't make."
Can god therefore make a device to help him fly?
Humans can.
God cannot fly either.
Being that god is superior to both gravity and air resistance, god cannot be susceptible to either force.
Well, that's what the power to fly is.
To admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air.
"2) There is nothing that God can't lift."
How does god lift a quantum particle?
Antithetically bumping, all to see.
Weird, two people in the last two days have both put up a vote on this debate, and for both of them it's their only activity...
Block19
BossChick_23
I'll get a vote in, honestly.
People like you who do this...
You should supply definitions BEFORE the debate begins, or else the person accepting could be walking into a TRAP!!!
Harasser, all to know.
It's time to get bumpin' bumpin'
He's right.
If you care about keeping this site high quality, just post your suggestions about the site here.
Maybe we should have a voter's union, or maybe there should be stronger moderation...whatever it is, put your suggestion here.
You will see, you've got me all wrong.
Keep bumping the debate by making up crap about my record.
I had over 30 debates, not forfeited, voted on by legit voters, whtieflame mostly, that I won without "moving goalposts"
I'm just a good debater, give props son.
Petition to ignore inferior opinions
-MagicAintReal
Ugh.
You guys are so hellbent on thinking that all of my debates are counter intuitive, but I have tons of debates that are not like that.
This debate is as it seems, there is nothing fallacious that I'd be arguing, take the debate and see.
Sounds like you're just jealous tbh.
What the fuck does this have to do with rating?
I'm arguing a point in a debate and someone can either take the opposition to it or not.
" it's just that its sad to see this site turn into DDO because of people like you."
People like me?
Intelligent people who are good at debating?
Do tell me what "people like me" are like.
There's nothing to expose, I will be arguing EXACTLY what i defined.
Just keep bumping the debate with your "exposing" nonsense.
It's nonsense.
No, oxford defines being as an existence and they define an existence as something that exists.
I was told to show both by one of the people in the comments, so I did.
It's totally possible to disprove.
Accept and see if you can.
To anyone who accepts this debate, I will 100% include in my 1st round these two definitions, so as to make it quite clear.
god - a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
being - existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being
In fact one can consider this right here, post #34 as part of the definitions.
Point taken, I will put it in my 1st round.
See below.
And yes I'm prepared to explain everything in the debate.
Look, whoever accepts, accepts the definitions laid out. If they don't like the definitions, then this debate is not for them.
It's #2 on the link.
Oxford dictionaries also defines being as an existence.
Other than the FF, so far so good.
We should have a debate on fair voting rules.
I'm loving this debate.
I'm definitely going to need to do this debate again.
see below
I might have to place a vote on this.
No, they are not living, they are animations, sir.
Look. Humans depend on god to stay alive as living beings.
Alive as opposed to dead.
Also, unlike some people, I have confidence that whoever accepts can win.
So, let's get to goddin'.
Wait, how did I mess with the conifer debate...it's about organismic superiority.
Anyway bump and bump and bump.
There is no warning necessary, but while we're at it...
It's time to get bumpin' bumpin'.
It's actually not. No semantics will be used. But by all means keep bumping.
Goddy god god god
See how your life depends on god.
Ok, are you done with the grudge yet, I'm really not that bad, what's your hang up man?
Trying, yes.
Though not directed at anyone, there's nothing to expose about me.
Enjoy trying.
hahaha per the image...that's me, moving the goalposts.
This is not directed toward anyone, despite its direct relevance, but the idea of some psychological dependence being a proof for god in this debate is incorrect.
All is there in the definitions; if you don't like the definitions or the rules, then don't accept.
Well actually I was highlighting that your grammar and spelling hindered the understanding of your posts, even when I put perfectly unambiguous terms in the place of the ambiguous terms you used.
There was question about whether or not grammar affected Pro's performance; it did.
So if The Peanut Butter of a Sandwich is Flavor, and with The Jelly of Flavor we know a Sandwich through this Peanut Butter, what does that mean? It means that a Sandwich is FLAVOR AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity: The Peanut Butter, The Jelly, The Sandwich.
So what am I establishing?
Well this is not replying to anyone specific, though it may seem directly relevant to things that have been posted here, I assure you it is not, but if Con were to have shown how the japanese are not in the east then why didn't the voter mention that?
Hey person I just first talked to in the comments section of my debate on Conifers being superior organisms to humans.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your vote and explain how Con showed that the Japanese don't experience sunsets...
"The premise of this debate is flawed from the start"
Hey someone I've never talked to before.
Why do you think that?
"The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. "
Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?
"An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species"
Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms.
"How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal"
By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?
"It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done."
Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous.
Watch the debate.
I think I wrote the word "homeostasis" 17 times in one round.
My fellow teachers would be proud.