Politics operates on belief systems. All that understand politics know this. They also know the dishonesty in politics. Everything concerning people is politics which includes this site as always.
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 .
In the forum y'all show up. Don't be scared here. I'm no challenge am I?
Do you mean to tell me there's not one atheist on here that can defend the stance of atheism?
There are atheists on this site aren't there?
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Politics operates on belief systems. All that understand politics know this. They also know the dishonesty in politics. Everything concerning people is politics which includes this site as always.
I tweak the title to give folks a better understanding of what the previous one was. It's not about disproving God but proposing a strong argument.
So you can validly say or say that God is false. Not prove, but say it .
That was the meaning behind that former title ok.
You folks that run from me, this is definitely not the topic to challenge me with.
Don't cower or cry. If you know you can refute people, you don't have to run from them.
A good fighter doesn't run from a no challenge bum or scrub.
Cowardice.
Cowardice.
You can vote now. Make a forum thread , discuss it, vote against it.
Instead of just reading dictionaries, look at what is logically sound.
Each responsible individual takes responsibility for his or her own action.
Society encourages not to kick the blame around. But when it comes to a disagreeable politician, you drop that principle.
Not even controversial. Possible signs of more cowardice.
Ran out of time, I had my argument ready in a draft too.
The dishonesty continues. A person can forfeit a debate and that means the person proved the other wrong says the fan club .
Amen, amen .
Hey looks like we're all in agreement here. I don't know for sure about these things so I test the waters to see if there happens to be disagreement.
Wish I could avoid the newcomers that just are a waste.
Good job in watching the language.
Blocking individuals is cowardice. If you think you can supercede them in an argument, there's no basis.
In other words nobody can prove evolution. I thought so. It is a theory like I said. Everyone that has denied that, recant and agree with me.
And so they lack understanding.
Dishonest folks cast their votes again. That or obtuse ones.
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.