People argue whether morality is subjective or objective . The resolution is just to operate by objective truths.
The morality that is touted as objective is from a subjective assessment.
If you believe that holding objective truths to use as a basis of a compass is another way of saying you hold to objective morality as a stance, come forth to prove that. It is not .
The opposing side I suspect doesn't really want to face this debate. The more they limit what can be said the less can be explained that would make it that much harder to refute the explanation.
Greetings. The topic: Is believing in the spirit of God, the bible, angels, demons equate to believing in fairy tales; are all these elements equivalent?
So something that is false that is denied being real is an intelligent stance because we can see that the principle often times is used and used to much avail.
Such as rejecting false accusations for a lack of evidence or evidence against them to keep a person falsely convicted. A lawyer that has accomplished this for whom they're defending is intelligent, smart and they accomplish this by denying bogus charges.
Another example would be rejecting or denying a false or fraudulent service meant to scam .
To prevent being a victim of such scam, someone acts intelligent, smart, not stupid in order to avoid a fall to victimization.
They do so by researching, gathering the facts and evidence that disproves any legitimate angle involved and denying the false veracity of said purported service.
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
What's not understood about what is said here?
Comment, send me a message. Otherwise irrefutable as always.
I'm going to place this message here being that this individual appears to couldn't have stood the heat and is running.
My response to this individual I debated on this topic is the following:
The problem is, don't let debating frustrate you. Don't get into your emotions and you'll be alright. Many people can't take be refuted and run. Take it on the chin. You'll be alright.
Ok we're all in agreement because last time I think we weren't. I think a lot of the individuals that were on here got the heck out of dodge. Oh Mall ran them out of debate art town .
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The person you voted for admitted that their position wasn't clear but it was clear to the voters. How many of you support abortion or political correct "pro-choice"?
More rational to assume from perception. That's what much of our perception is . It's assumption from our standpoint, a flat surface, from the ground view, terrain and skyline.
My family and I, my nextdoor neighbors, my community is struggling. An affair going on between two outside individuals does nothing for us. Yet that was in the "best interest" of us.
Clearly we're not the part of the country the ones who vote for the opposing side have in mind. Just making a recognition of that .
Cowardice copout move of some folks.
It was expressed strongly that this was an impossibility in the forum. I guess it was all opinion.
People argue whether morality is subjective or objective . The resolution is just to operate by objective truths.
The morality that is touted as objective is from a subjective assessment.
If you believe that holding objective truths to use as a basis of a compass is another way of saying you hold to objective morality as a stance, come forth to prove that. It is not .
No takers, topic is too deep.
So much for this.
Water is wet.
Every time someone uses water it's wet.
When someone asks do you want some water, there is no clarifying questions of is it frozen or unfrozen, wet or dry.
It be no surprise that ice has a degree of moisture.
I hope this topic doesn't go to waste.
"but you didn't justify why both sides have arguments and sources of equal quality. "
"My side and the opposing side can find texts to support our position, so what are we left with?
Well this verse comes to mine.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ... “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make ALIVE; I wound, and I heal: " "
Kudos to those who were honest about that. Shame on those who ignored it.
I'll try to fit what I can. Doesn't leave much room to counter but what I have to say is substantial . It'll pretty much counter simultaneously.
The opposing side I suspect doesn't really want to face this debate. The more they limit what can be said the less can be explained that would make it that much harder to refute the explanation.
Anybody of any age should be allowed to have therapy regarding their specific gender issue.
Pro side can't prove anything. They can express their thoughts.
Greetings. The topic: Is believing in the spirit of God, the bible, angels, demons equate to believing in fairy tales; are all these elements equivalent?
Must provide at least 5 arguments.
Virgin birth is the birth of Jesus without a natural father although he is or was called the son of David.
Topics: 1. Jesus being God in the flesh/divine Son of God
2. The virgin Mary/Virgin birth
3. The death/resurrection of Christ from crucifixion.
Mall
12/26/2023, 7:56:58 AM
For this one I like to get an honest effort from both sides.
I'll try this again this time with you.
Topic: Was Bill Cosby a rapist and not a participant at a party passing out drugs to voluntary participants?
Must provide 10 arguments and must answer questions directly. Incompliance or evasion is automatically a forfeit of burden of proof.
Mall
12/26/2023, 7:51:01 AM
Greetings to you.
This is a dual topic: Prove that Donald J . Trump is a "racist"/Prove that Louis Farrakhan has hatred/hate filled.
Must provide 10 arguments and must answer questions directly. Any incompliance or evasion is an automatic forfeit on burden of proof.
Inspired topic no less .
So something that is false that is denied being real is an intelligent stance because we can see that the principle often times is used and used to much avail.
Such as rejecting false accusations for a lack of evidence or evidence against them to keep a person falsely convicted. A lawyer that has accomplished this for whom they're defending is intelligent, smart and they accomplish this by denying bogus charges.
Another example would be rejecting or denying a false or fraudulent service meant to scam .
To prevent being a victim of such scam, someone acts intelligent, smart, not stupid in order to avoid a fall to victimization.
They do so by researching, gathering the facts and evidence that disproves any legitimate angle involved and denying the false veracity of said purported service.
No takers. I thought this be up your alley.
No takers . Well this site is not reflecting the general common view.
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
What's not understood about what is said here?
Comment, send me a message. Otherwise irrefutable as always.
I'm going to place this message here being that this individual appears to couldn't have stood the heat and is running.
My response to this individual I debated on this topic is the following:
The problem is, don't let debating frustrate you. Don't get into your emotions and you'll be alright. Many people can't take be refuted and run. Take it on the chin. You'll be alright.
No takers, it's obviously true.
This is a pretty big site. Perhaps only one has no apprehension to face top contender on this site .
Those that have fear, continue to stay quiet, continue to run, run scared.
Ok we're all in agreement because last time I think we weren't. I think a lot of the individuals that were on here got the heck out of dodge. Oh Mall ran them out of debate art town .
Case closed . I doubt I won't be sleep when it's my turn. Ain't staying up after two hours deliberately.
Topic is a true statement. Nobody is challenging it.
Farewell comrade known to this site as Sir Lancelot .
Farewell comrade known to this site as Sir Lancelot .
Waste of time debating this individual. Actually just interacting because they come with no debate at all.
Topic has been updated. It was not controversial.
Looks like everybody agrees with the topic.
If you actually have empirical evidence, what is there to have a faith about?
You have faith when you don't have evidence. You have the knowledge with evidence.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:24:11 AM
Several of you accept the challenge but don't send a message on the topic. Now I'm on the clock. What is the topic?
The opposing side is restricting the topic possibly causing a first round forfeit.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
It's just the truth of God versus any religion.
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I can't debate anything I don't have a basis for.
It's ALL GOOD that this is a non biblical burdened topic as it looks like. Can't find scripture to back up the positive position
I'm willing to debate this with anyone but you have to have scripture to back up everything you put out.
Still let every man be persuaded in his own mind by the evidence they can see for themselves.
The minority here on the side of truth. We are few in number but we're in truth.
I believe just like the scripture say. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.
It's just information. Whether you want to call it a source of information or whatever. That's all it is.
No crime in just sending a private invitation.
The person you voted for admitted that their position wasn't clear but it was clear to the voters. How many of you support abortion or political correct "pro-choice"?
More rational to assume from perception. That's what much of our perception is . It's assumption from our standpoint, a flat surface, from the ground view, terrain and skyline.
Matthew 22
" Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures".
Book chapter and verse .
My family and I, my nextdoor neighbors, my community is struggling. An affair going on between two outside individuals does nothing for us. Yet that was in the "best interest" of us.
Clearly we're not the part of the country the ones who vote for the opposing side have in mind. Just making a recognition of that .
These debates on the existence of God from the positive side, completely futile.
What do you people really believe?