For those asking about "losses" and "wins", below is what your so called "losses" and "wins" mean to me.
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.
See , who you say wins a debate, loses is totally subjective. It doesn't dictate the truth I actually present. Just because I state the fact of the sky being blue while being in a pool of liars that say it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't.
See that would be the ad populum fallacy.
So we have some folks that agree with my topic statement. Yet, someone took the challenge from the debate session. So apparently we have those that think this statement is false or can argue as if it were.
12 more days, nobody accepts, it'll prove in support of my position and all the other debates of the same topic as well. The votes ought to be consistent with that.
Well hey , if nobody can prove God did not create water or darkness with scripture, no participants will make that clear and my stance true. Also it'll make clear to what was proven on the other debate of the same topic statement.
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
You guys are really that blind as "sheeple" people believing invisibility and visibility is the same. That's what you're agreeing to saying the Spirit and a person human being is one in the same . Really.
Can anyone here show it is WRITTEN, where the WORDS ARE WRITTEN?
it's like many of you don't get it when something is written as is, there is no difference of interpretation. The debate is not up for what is the correct interpretation. The debate is over what actual words are used and written.
It's like somebody knows they're defeated when they can't prove something verbatim so they evade that or move the goalpost.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
People will use the same argument of silence fallacy in reverse using the same basis.
For example, because the new testament doesn't state that using musical instruments to worship are permitted, people then with this belief, they turn and say instruments are not permitted.
But I can think I'm rebutting them by saying it doesn't state the instruments are not allowed. I have no greater validity than them because I just recycled the basis in opposition, that's all.
"UPDATES:
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for cultural dominance leading to more converts.
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for the spread of the Gospel.
My opponent has failed to refute the suggested Biblical date of Christmas."
My friend I think you're in the wrong debate. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the context of this topic
"My opponent has failed to prove that Christmas is forbidden for Bible believers."
The scripture does speak about those with hard hearts that reject the message. With a hard heart, nothing can get through to it no matter what I present to you.
"My opponent has misinterpreted and misrepresented the topic of the debate."
I did this to my own topic. This is like telling a person you don't know the words to their own song THEY have written. On top of that, you have the audacity to mention disrespect. Well there certainly isn't due respect consistently if you have to set aside a date to "one-up " it.
"My opponent has failed to show why Bible believers should not celebrate Christmas."
You're adding a lot more into this than the pure words of scripture, "honour the Son". We didn't have to get into different activities one can do or can do for only a certain time or day or time of day.
Sounds like just a loophole for something that is not legal. Once more, there is no "Well may be I can do something special to honor". NO , that so called special honor is incessant because it's whatsoever you do. Whether you eat or drink , do ALL to the glory of God .
It seems hard and will be to those that are so married to the world and their ways and customs, which are the heathens.
What did Jesus say? It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. It's too hard so broad is the way that's easier and relax in your vanities.
True Bible believers just can't accept that.
"You heard it here first, folks! If you have a significant other and put extraordinary effort into his/her birthday, you simply aren't honoring and celebrating her the other 364 days. The love, care, and time you put in otherwise simply isn't equivocal. Sorry, guys! Hopefully she can be truly loved and honored next birthday. Perhaps this is not what they were suggesting. However, the wording is very confusing."
Good , so they can learn something.
Let's reiterate this part.
"All I'm talking about is celebrating a specific day would be no different hence throwing away the concept of a "special" day or so called holiday. There'd be no difference period."
Clearly people can't do this 24/7 so anniversaries and holidays are invented."
I think I asked you the question that you didn't answer correctly.
If I'm giving honor to you then say on this date I plan to give you honor, what?
That's saying I'm going to give you something I'm already giving you. Only way to make that make sense is to be honest in saying I'm not giving you that and a day has been selected to give it.
To say I do give it but then say I can give a little more on this particular day is coming from a disingenuous position.
Question is, am I really giving honor outside this particular day?
What kind of honor or respect am I giving that doesn't measure up the same for that particular day?
Now it's get ethical more so because now I'm revealing that I'm not giving full respect or giving partial respect which still constitutes as disrespect so it's no respect at all.
You can say "No, you're always giving respect but this or that particular day you're doing something different to show it".
Well that's not the point. You can be creative as you want. Mix it up, have all the variety in the world of things to do. There is no emphasis on a day that weighs more, stands out or is more special.
Which is what Christmas DAY emphasizes.
If it were Christmas DAYS, now we have a wholesome concept.
Same way with Mother's DAY. If it were Mother's DAYS because we as sons and daughters continue the respect, we'd have a wholesome concept.
But like the negative side alluded to, this simply cannot be done for whatever reason. I can see it can't be done so holidays, anniversary commemorations were invented.
It's a wholesome concept to commemorate not just annually somebody had been born but daily.
"I already did back up the need to spread the Gospel which makes Christmas useful with scripture. "
Christmas is not of the scripture. The two don't go together. It goes with belief of the heathen. Now I know this stings . You don't like to hear it but better to do some stinging now than burning later.
"Once again, just because computers are not explicitly allowed in the Bible does not mean that they are forbidden to you, just like Christmas."
Bad argument. The scripture doesn't state I'm prohibited from decapitating Mr. John down on 24th street nor does it state not to snort cocaine or draw from a cancerous cigarette.
What makes the argument of silence argument so bad for one thing is you're focusing on specific things needed to be said that the Bible is silent on. But the Bible says there is nothing new under the sun.
So if you search the scriptures as the scriptures say, you can come out of falsehood. You'll find that there's nothing that the Bible can't give an answer to.
The Bible say ask and it will be given, when He hears, He will answer you.
When you simply go with what the scripture is specifically silent on, you're in bad shape. You find yourself lost. I guess this is why you believe the Bible supports something. Just because it's specifically silent on Christmas, no,no,no please search the scriptures starting with what I provided here in this exchange.
The scriptures do not teach to celebrate Christmas. I can tell you the sun is in the sky. "Debartart.com" says it is not because it's night time. Typical and expected.
I establish what a believer is to me. One thing you guys struggle with is accepting what somebody means when they use terms. When you communicate, this is the process. Otherwise, we can just be speaking foreign languages with one another.
I understand that there are those that expected me to show a scripture that specifically says something. That's just like expecting me to show a scripture that says do not kill James and Allan and whoever.
There's no scripture that states specifically. But because there's scripture that states do not kill, that indirectly covers James and Allan and whoever.
When you can't accept that reality, it's like fingers in your ears. You make up your mind to expect and or require a certain argument. When you're told it doesn't require what you're seeking and a counter refutation is made, it doesn't sink in right away.
Yes, news flash, things don't always go the way you prepared for them. I came back with a curve ball and no refutation to knock it out the park.
It wasn't my position that the scripture said directly and specifically there is a prohibition of Christmas celebration. It doesn't mean it's automatically permitted either. It works both ways.
Reading through all this , I thought it was clear. I fully established what a Bible believer is. That is one living according to scripture,not just someone with the title Christian.
You folks still don't understand what I'm talking about like usual anyhow.
This scenario presented about an assault is different from somebody that is dead.
Of course you can still get justice alive. You're a live person. The topic was concerning the dead. Don't present a scenario about you going to court to get justice. It's the dead person that's not going, they're in the grave or wherever else .
Ok , peace and bid you great fortune on your pursuit of truth.
"It seems my opponent has misunderstood the definition of what justice is and confused it for something else regarding either morality or alleviation of suffering."
It seems you're disregarding how I'm defining it. It's how I'm defining it, how I'm defining, how I'm defining.
Many of you do this. You disregard what the other is saying instead of communicating with the other person.
"In Round 1, Pro never defines 'justice' so I did:"
You can have your own definition. It doesn't do much good because you're interested in going into my position.
My position on justice was illustrated through real life examples. Examples explains a lot about what something means.
For example of a firefighter. The fireman put out the building fire. At least we have information of what a fireman can do or does just based from a specific scenario.
So in round one . Did you disregard the examples on purpose?
"I have a chance to be treated properly which is what justice is. At least what I mean when I use the term."
So here I clearly say what I mean when I say justice.
Do you want to argue semantics because you have no refutation otherwise?
"I or a person receives a fair trial in the name of justice. In a court of law, the evidence is presented, testimonies are given for the sake of those not guilty or found innocent not to be dealt with improperly.
Those who have fought for the rights and laws to help serve better treatment, those individuals were looking for justice.
Something to be made right that would make a change, improve a situation."
I explained what I'm talking about when it comes to justice. Did you just gloss over this?
You missed this somehow I guess .
I went into real life examples that specify the meaning of justice.
Are you going to deny those , tell them they weren't out to seek justice?
Another common problem I notice are those that think they can dictate the experience of others.
If a person wants justice and it would mean that they're no longer disadvantaged, oppressed, mistreated, etc., then that's what it would mean for them.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can argue with somebody's subjective circumstances and the answers to deal with their, their,their victimhood.
So in that regard, that applies to the living, not the dead. I don't think you have refutation for that so what other move you take on the chess board, well pick at the usage of a term.
Justice, victory, fair treatment, whatever, it is that which that is only applicable TO THE LIVING.
If I say my car is fast, you may say " No it's not " or " no because it's not a car."
You say it's a vehicle. Whether you call it a vehicle or I a car, it's still it that is which is it.
That it for example does what it does which it goes fast .
The reality is still the same, valid and true. You guys fight over what you want to call something, names and labels are just the fabric of a language.
My dinero is in the bank. Another person says, no your money. I say yes, my dinero. I won't argue, we're talking about the same thing .
So believe you understand what mistreatment is. I believe you are aware of history of laws in place to sabotage or undervalue certain individuals.
Those individuals fought to change things to disrupt the mistreatment.
The dead individuals cannot fight anything. They may have died trying.
They may have put up a good fight .
Now it's left to the individuals alive left to fight.
"It is possible to mete out justice on behalf of dead individuals that were victim of crimes by punishing the wrongdoer. "
Do you concede based on how I use the term justice, there is none for the dead?
"It is also possible to to justice to the dead by helping living victims in a very similar situation to the martyr, which Pro misconstrued as me saying the living being helped is the justice. Instead, the justice is the focus on fairness and laws."
Focus on fairness and laws for who?
Are the laws to obey for dead people or living folks ?
"What Pro is arguing is that when you do justice on behalf of the dead"
This is misrepresentation. I say there is no justice for the dead .
"I agree to that, the dead individual will not consciously within themselves receive the justice if we assume there is no afterlife or soul."
The objection is there is no verification of a person's total talent. The only verification is what that individual chooses or does perform before the one public."
Nothing in here states anything about it being impossible. I said quote where I said according to your statement regarding comparing saxophonists.
This is why I have you quote exactly. You build a straw man out of something in lieu of really understanding what a person is saying.
"So CON blatantly stated that he is unable to compare two saxophonists and also stated it is possible to judge saxophonists according to any standard."
Strawman.
"I'm not quite sure where CON is getting this. I switched sides and began arguing PRO when CON made it aware to me. CON is making false statements about my opening debate position which is easily verifiable by reading my opening statement. Even CON makes admission of this fact:
Ok so it appears you are arguing from the PRO side. First you say I'm PRO , then you argue the PRO position.
So I don't know where his claims of me being dishonest are coming from."
Your comments are viewable. You stated one thing and did another. You are either dishonest or mixed up, one of the two .
"But moving on, CON also steers away from the debate prompt entirely, which was whether Kenny G IS a better saxophone player than Charlie Parker. Not whether PRO or CON have their own opinions of the saxophonists.
CON states:
I'm valid in saying it is my opinion that Kenny G is better for me , Everette Harp, Art Tatum , Nat King Cole , Louie Armstrong, Dave Koz are better to me .
It works the same way vice versa.
This statement is ultimately the problem with CON's assessment, because CON here is claiming that, ultimately he cannot prove his case and even says, once again, that my argument is equally valid to his. So, in essence, CON agrees that my argument is valid, which means CON must default.
But furthermore, CON does not make an argument from any sort of data, technical skill, performance metrics, or critical acclaim at all. He makes a claim he cannot and refuses to, furnish proof for. This violates basic burden of proof standards.
Therefore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. CON's case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Therefore PRO wins by default."
Maybe we ought to have a debate about ketchup over mustard. I can see you conveniently didn't respond to that analogy.
Perhaps we can have that so called debate to understand what I'm talking about.
You guys , when you get into these debates, it's like you put up these thick walls where you can't absorb anything from the other side.
Everything you stated here is an indication of that. You want to argue opinions, not facts.
An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence.
That wall is so thick, this won't make a dent .
But hey I appreciate your so called challenge. Perhaps next time, pick an objective topic like something related to health and wellness or science.
Not a topic on " boys are better than girls" so to speak.
You don't even engage, least not this time. You didn't address anything I stated. You people are so scared to communicate directly with the person but just communicate at them.
You didn't challenge what I stated as it would of begged the question to turn the tables on you.
I ask you people direct questions and you're hesitant to answer.
Ahh people don't like physical discipline.
Topic statement is correct. It doesn't exist.
Well it is terrible I'll give you that, is it terrible debating with those that most likely indulge libertarian values but I strive to help.
This site reduced to debating personal dramas.
Then I voluntarily go on in attempt to edify. I try not to give up on the lost.
For those asking about "losses" and "wins", below is what your so called "losses" and "wins" mean to me.
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.
See , who you say wins a debate, loses is totally subjective. It doesn't dictate the truth I actually present. Just because I state the fact of the sky being blue while being in a pool of liars that say it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't.
See that would be the ad populum fallacy.
So we have some folks that agree with my topic statement. Yet, someone took the challenge from the debate session. So apparently we have those that think this statement is false or can argue as if it were.
12 more days, nobody accepts, it'll prove in support of my position and all the other debates of the same topic as well. The votes ought to be consistent with that.
Well hey , if nobody can prove God did not create water or darkness with scripture, no participants will make that clear and my stance true. Also it'll make clear to what was proven on the other debate of the same topic statement.
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
What is so hard to accept about this?
You know.....very factual.
You guys are really that blind as "sheeple" people believing invisibility and visibility is the same. That's what you're agreeing to saying the Spirit and a person human being is one in the same . Really.
Do not add unto his words less you be found a liar . Which many of you no doubt are from these biblical topics.
I can't explain to why and what things sound like to other people.
That's subjective. Ask yourself why do you interpret or get the impression you get .
Can anyone here show it is WRITTEN, where the WORDS ARE WRITTEN?
it's like many of you don't get it when something is written as is, there is no difference of interpretation. The debate is not up for what is the correct interpretation. The debate is over what actual words are used and written.
It's like somebody knows they're defeated when they can't prove something verbatim so they evade that or move the goalpost.
Can anyone here show where it's written God is a person?
Incorrect what people are saying here. You still don't get it. If there is a mention of celebrating Jesus, when ?
See this is where you go wrong and true Bible believers got it right.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
Such a small minority on the side of truth .
Such a small minority here on the side of truth. We're in a pool of falsehood shonough .
You can have your Christmas trees and Santa pagans. The Bible doesn't justify any of that.
People vote on non evidence repeatedly here.
People will use the same argument of silence fallacy in reverse using the same basis.
For example, because the new testament doesn't state that using musical instruments to worship are permitted, people then with this belief, they turn and say instruments are not permitted.
But I can think I'm rebutting them by saying it doesn't state the instruments are not allowed. I have no greater validity than them because I just recycled the basis in opposition, that's all.
"UPDATES:
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for cultural dominance leading to more converts.
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for the spread of the Gospel.
My opponent has failed to refute the suggested Biblical date of Christmas."
My friend I think you're in the wrong debate. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the context of this topic
"My opponent has failed to prove that Christmas is forbidden for Bible believers."
The scripture does speak about those with hard hearts that reject the message. With a hard heart, nothing can get through to it no matter what I present to you.
"My opponent has misinterpreted and misrepresented the topic of the debate."
I did this to my own topic. This is like telling a person you don't know the words to their own song THEY have written. On top of that, you have the audacity to mention disrespect. Well there certainly isn't due respect consistently if you have to set aside a date to "one-up " it.
"My opponent has failed to show why Bible believers should not celebrate Christmas."
I'm glad I made this only 3 rounds
You're adding a lot more into this than the pure words of scripture, "honour the Son". We didn't have to get into different activities one can do or can do for only a certain time or day or time of day.
Sounds like just a loophole for something that is not legal. Once more, there is no "Well may be I can do something special to honor". NO , that so called special honor is incessant because it's whatsoever you do. Whether you eat or drink , do ALL to the glory of God .
It seems hard and will be to those that are so married to the world and their ways and customs, which are the heathens.
What did Jesus say? It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. It's too hard so broad is the way that's easier and relax in your vanities.
True Bible believers just can't accept that.
"You heard it here first, folks! If you have a significant other and put extraordinary effort into his/her birthday, you simply aren't honoring and celebrating her the other 364 days. The love, care, and time you put in otherwise simply isn't equivocal. Sorry, guys! Hopefully she can be truly loved and honored next birthday. Perhaps this is not what they were suggesting. However, the wording is very confusing."
Good , so they can learn something.
Let's reiterate this part.
"All I'm talking about is celebrating a specific day would be no different hence throwing away the concept of a "special" day or so called holiday. There'd be no difference period."
Clearly people can't do this 24/7 so anniversaries and holidays are invented."
I think I asked you the question that you didn't answer correctly.
If I'm giving honor to you then say on this date I plan to give you honor, what?
That's saying I'm going to give you something I'm already giving you. Only way to make that make sense is to be honest in saying I'm not giving you that and a day has been selected to give it.
To say I do give it but then say I can give a little more on this particular day is coming from a disingenuous position.
Question is, am I really giving honor outside this particular day?
What kind of honor or respect am I giving that doesn't measure up the same for that particular day?
Now it's get ethical more so because now I'm revealing that I'm not giving full respect or giving partial respect which still constitutes as disrespect so it's no respect at all.
You can say "No, you're always giving respect but this or that particular day you're doing something different to show it".
Well that's not the point. You can be creative as you want. Mix it up, have all the variety in the world of things to do. There is no emphasis on a day that weighs more, stands out or is more special.
Which is what Christmas DAY emphasizes.
If it were Christmas DAYS, now we have a wholesome concept.
Same way with Mother's DAY. If it were Mother's DAYS because we as sons and daughters continue the respect, we'd have a wholesome concept.
But like the negative side alluded to, this simply cannot be done for whatever reason. I can see it can't be done so holidays, anniversary commemorations were invented.
It's a wholesome concept to commemorate not just annually somebody had been born but daily.
"I already did back up the need to spread the Gospel which makes Christmas useful with scripture. "
Christmas is not of the scripture. The two don't go together. It goes with belief of the heathen. Now I know this stings . You don't like to hear it but better to do some stinging now than burning later.
"Once again, just because computers are not explicitly allowed in the Bible does not mean that they are forbidden to you, just like Christmas."
Bad argument. The scripture doesn't state I'm prohibited from decapitating Mr. John down on 24th street nor does it state not to snort cocaine or draw from a cancerous cigarette.
What makes the argument of silence argument so bad for one thing is you're focusing on specific things needed to be said that the Bible is silent on. But the Bible says there is nothing new under the sun.
So if you search the scriptures as the scriptures say, you can come out of falsehood. You'll find that there's nothing that the Bible can't give an answer to.
The Bible say ask and it will be given, when He hears, He will answer you.
When you simply go with what the scripture is specifically silent on, you're in bad shape. You find yourself lost. I guess this is why you believe the Bible supports something. Just because it's specifically silent on Christmas, no,no,no please search the scriptures starting with what I provided here in this exchange.
People know they're in the debt of paying things and try to vote against the truth. Home of hypocrites on this site.
Need votes to validate your truth. Keywords your truth.
The best way is to be able to adapt.
To be formless , shapeless ike water.
When the opponent expands, I contract.
When he contracts, I expand.
-BRUCE LEE
The scriptures do not teach to celebrate Christmas. I can tell you the sun is in the sky. "Debartart.com" says it is not because it's night time. Typical and expected.
So you all do agree with me but vote against me. Yes the truth comes outttt. What a riot.
Yes just what I thought.
I establish what a believer is to me. One thing you guys struggle with is accepting what somebody means when they use terms. When you communicate, this is the process. Otherwise, we can just be speaking foreign languages with one another.
I understand that there are those that expected me to show a scripture that specifically says something. That's just like expecting me to show a scripture that says do not kill James and Allan and whoever.
There's no scripture that states specifically. But because there's scripture that states do not kill, that indirectly covers James and Allan and whoever.
When you can't accept that reality, it's like fingers in your ears. You make up your mind to expect and or require a certain argument. When you're told it doesn't require what you're seeking and a counter refutation is made, it doesn't sink in right away.
Yes, news flash, things don't always go the way you prepared for them. I came back with a curve ball and no refutation to knock it out the park.
It wasn't my position that the scripture said directly and specifically there is a prohibition of Christmas celebration. It doesn't mean it's automatically permitted either. It works both ways.
Reading through all this , I thought it was clear. I fully established what a Bible believer is. That is one living according to scripture,not just someone with the title Christian.
Talk about not having a clue.
It's alright, maybe someday in this life, you guys, some how.
Wrong wrong wrong.
You folks still don't understand what I'm talking about like usual anyhow.
This scenario presented about an assault is different from somebody that is dead.
Of course you can still get justice alive. You're a live person. The topic was concerning the dead. Don't present a scenario about you going to court to get justice. It's the dead person that's not going, they're in the grave or wherever else .
Ok , peace and bid you great fortune on your pursuit of truth.
Hope all is clear. Smh .
Character limit too restrictive. I could only fit a fraction of what was said in our LIVE real time debate session.
"It seems my opponent has misunderstood the definition of what justice is and confused it for something else regarding either morality or alleviation of suffering."
It seems you're disregarding how I'm defining it. It's how I'm defining it, how I'm defining, how I'm defining.
Many of you do this. You disregard what the other is saying instead of communicating with the other person.
"In Round 1, Pro never defines 'justice' so I did:"
You can have your own definition. It doesn't do much good because you're interested in going into my position.
My position on justice was illustrated through real life examples. Examples explains a lot about what something means.
For example of a firefighter. The fireman put out the building fire. At least we have information of what a fireman can do or does just based from a specific scenario.
So in round one . Did you disregard the examples on purpose?
"I have a chance to be treated properly which is what justice is. At least what I mean when I use the term."
So here I clearly say what I mean when I say justice.
Do you want to argue semantics because you have no refutation otherwise?
"I or a person receives a fair trial in the name of justice. In a court of law, the evidence is presented, testimonies are given for the sake of those not guilty or found innocent not to be dealt with improperly.
Those who have fought for the rights and laws to help serve better treatment, those individuals were looking for justice.
Something to be made right that would make a change, improve a situation."
I explained what I'm talking about when it comes to justice. Did you just gloss over this?
You missed this somehow I guess .
I went into real life examples that specify the meaning of justice.
Are you going to deny those , tell them they weren't out to seek justice?
Another common problem I notice are those that think they can dictate the experience of others.
If a person wants justice and it would mean that they're no longer disadvantaged, oppressed, mistreated, etc., then that's what it would mean for them.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can argue with somebody's subjective circumstances and the answers to deal with their, their,their victimhood.
So in that regard, that applies to the living, not the dead. I don't think you have refutation for that so what other move you take on the chess board, well pick at the usage of a term.
Justice, victory, fair treatment, whatever, it is that which that is only applicable TO THE LIVING.
If I say my car is fast, you may say " No it's not " or " no because it's not a car."
You say it's a vehicle. Whether you call it a vehicle or I a car, it's still it that is which is it.
That it for example does what it does which it goes fast .
The reality is still the same, valid and true. You guys fight over what you want to call something, names and labels are just the fabric of a language.
My dinero is in the bank. Another person says, no your money. I say yes, my dinero. I won't argue, we're talking about the same thing .
So believe you understand what mistreatment is. I believe you are aware of history of laws in place to sabotage or undervalue certain individuals.
Those individuals fought to change things to disrupt the mistreatment.
The dead individuals cannot fight anything. They may have died trying.
They may have put up a good fight .
Now it's left to the individuals alive left to fight.
"It is possible to mete out justice on behalf of dead individuals that were victim of crimes by punishing the wrongdoer. "
Do you concede based on how I use the term justice, there is none for the dead?
"It is also possible to to justice to the dead by helping living victims in a very similar situation to the martyr, which Pro misconstrued as me saying the living being helped is the justice. Instead, the justice is the focus on fairness and laws."
Focus on fairness and laws for who?
Are the laws to obey for dead people or living folks ?
"What Pro is arguing is that when you do justice on behalf of the dead"
This is misrepresentation. I say there is no justice for the dead .
"I agree to that, the dead individual will not consciously within themselves receive the justice if we assume there is no afterlife or soul."
Thank you for finally coming around.
Ran out of time to post this.
Oh ye of little understanding.
Just let me hit the ground.
Just couldn't beat the clock but my response wasn't much different to add. Since I took the time to make one , I'll post it here.
"In round one CON stated:
The objection is there is no verification of a person's total talent. The only verification is what that individual chooses or does perform before the one public."
Nothing in here states anything about it being impossible. I said quote where I said according to your statement regarding comparing saxophonists.
This is why I have you quote exactly. You build a straw man out of something in lieu of really understanding what a person is saying.
"So CON blatantly stated that he is unable to compare two saxophonists and also stated it is possible to judge saxophonists according to any standard."
Strawman.
"I'm not quite sure where CON is getting this. I switched sides and began arguing PRO when CON made it aware to me. CON is making false statements about my opening debate position which is easily verifiable by reading my opening statement. Even CON makes admission of this fact:
Ok so it appears you are arguing from the PRO side. First you say I'm PRO , then you argue the PRO position.
So I don't know where his claims of me being dishonest are coming from."
Your comments are viewable. You stated one thing and did another. You are either dishonest or mixed up, one of the two .
"But moving on, CON also steers away from the debate prompt entirely, which was whether Kenny G IS a better saxophone player than Charlie Parker. Not whether PRO or CON have their own opinions of the saxophonists.
CON states:
I'm valid in saying it is my opinion that Kenny G is better for me , Everette Harp, Art Tatum , Nat King Cole , Louie Armstrong, Dave Koz are better to me .
It works the same way vice versa.
This statement is ultimately the problem with CON's assessment, because CON here is claiming that, ultimately he cannot prove his case and even says, once again, that my argument is equally valid to his. So, in essence, CON agrees that my argument is valid, which means CON must default.
But furthermore, CON does not make an argument from any sort of data, technical skill, performance metrics, or critical acclaim at all. He makes a claim he cannot and refuses to, furnish proof for. This violates basic burden of proof standards.
Therefore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. CON's case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Therefore PRO wins by default."
Maybe we ought to have a debate about ketchup over mustard. I can see you conveniently didn't respond to that analogy.
Perhaps we can have that so called debate to understand what I'm talking about.
You guys , when you get into these debates, it's like you put up these thick walls where you can't absorb anything from the other side.
Everything you stated here is an indication of that. You want to argue opinions, not facts.
An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence.
That wall is so thick, this won't make a dent .
But hey I appreciate your so called challenge. Perhaps next time, pick an objective topic like something related to health and wellness or science.
Not a topic on " boys are better than girls" so to speak.
So there are individuals on here that actually believe homosexuality does not prevent child births, wow .
Dumb and liberally brainwashed.
Put the topic to the test. No person in the world desiring to have children, each of you championing human extinction.
Ok. I'll give you guys credit if what happens doesn't happen after I setup this topic again.
You don't even engage, least not this time. You didn't address anything I stated. You people are so scared to communicate directly with the person but just communicate at them.
You didn't challenge what I stated as it would of begged the question to turn the tables on you.
I ask you people direct questions and you're hesitant to answer.
We live everyday by this maxim. For those results we get from it is why it should be .
I appreciate the very few that vote on that reality.
If you know you can't sell somebody something, pass up on the challenge.
There's hope for this site yet.
Nah it's real most definitely people. You're living proofs of it .
This person absolutely could not prove I don't use sources. That's why they came back empty handed after promising gold and silver, case closed.