I don't believe I can . But for you not to walk away empty handed, Romans 1:25-32 tells you the worth of death and the wages or payment for sin is death.
So in a roundabout way, that first chapter is telling you what some sins are. The opposite of those would be righteousness or non-sins.
When it comes to winning a debate here, I put forth the following.
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.
That's all. It's the popular versus the unpopular echo chamber. But this is a school. One day somebody somewhere, with something will click.
My arguments are valid regardless because they're the truth and that's justification for why anyone would not want to debate this irrefutable position, period.
Unless you meant last round of the first round. That wasn't very specific. I don't fully get what the issue is. Maybe because you're on the CON side, PRO side is supposed to argue first. But I didn't see anything specified in that way either.
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
You can't silence me. Freedom of speech, everybody has a voice.
They wanted to silence Christ Jesus, the prophets, ministers moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. Protesters, activists, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Martin Luther King Jr. , Bruce Lee. Even adding D.J. Trump to it.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place, but that would be irrelevant as there are no guns to get rid of."
Thank you very much for conceding to my point. Don't try to backpedal with the "but". People always try to do that and there's no need less you stand contradicted.
You already agree something else would substitute, so it's equivalent. It doesn't matter what we have. You can remove anything you want. There'll just be something else and something else and something else. It's the heart of man, not the inventions.
"Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side."
Proving it in some other debate. Not this one. That's not what this one is about.
"Can something else be used in the place of guns?
Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.
[citation needed] [proof needed]"
In answer to the first question, you just conceded that.
Let me play it back for you.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Do you not even believe what you just stated? Where's the proof on that?
If a gun does not exist, an alternate weapon can or will be used.
Do you need proof that terrorist attacks have happened? Was that an illusion in the media? Were those buildings not really demolished?
Come on , let's face this .
"Have you forgotten what bombs can do?
Do you remember the attacks of September 11?
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. "
Literally downplaying people that have perished. Names engraved on walls and memorials and you're measuring significance.
Tunneling on robbery.
When are you going to look at the context of the entire world?
Mankind's destruction encompasses more than the end result of robbery, murder, getting even, going to war, etc .
"Most people can get access to firearms and most deaths of violence are caused by it, and bombs are not that destructive. "
Just getting repetitive.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
I don't know what you mean by " not that destructive ". I don't know if you're just measuring by numbers in fatalities or actually dealing with what a bomb is.
The very nature of what it can do. A bomb going off in my lap, what do you think is left of me? I'm pretty well destroyed. A grenade is thrown at me. I step on a mine, it's crazy to think not much is destructive. Ok maybe I'm not completely blown to smithereens. But I'm dead just like a gun shot to the head, I'm dead .
"over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above."
Due to people using guns. Get it right. We lock up people,not guns. People are the problem so we get rid of them putting them on death row.
I believe World War one happened so I don't need a source to it. I already know it.
"In all respect, this is less of a total lie than what my opponent proposed due to me using authentic sourced to back up a claim and he just used pure speculation despite big sources disagreeing with him. Calling this "brainwashed liberal garbage" is bad conduct nevertheless."
Call on evidence on yourself.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Don't tell me this is a lie. People are in agreement and don't even catch it.
At this point it appears we have exhausted everything . It's getting repetitious with points. We're going in circles.
In there next round you can broach new points. I can't say all my points were addressed. You've repeated things back to me like I haven't already stated them.
Unless you have anything new to introduce, this is pretty much a rap.
"Being a boss in a business requires you to respect the fact that if nobody demands what you supply at the quality, in the way and/or at the price you provide it... you will go bankrupt."
We agree, we have the same position. Don't tell me I'm the boss of a consumer with the power to bankrupt my store. Quit the wavering.
So can atheism be defined as such. See, it's not the "belief" part to put so much emphasis on. It's the subject, the "what", the thing that the belief/disbelief is circled around.
Begin to exist to exist means looking at a newborn seeing, observing all of its functions.
Everything is occurring, growing, developing for it to live, not die. We inevitably die but it doesn't look that way from the beginning. That's why it has an inconsistent read. Based on perspective.
Validity is determined of itself based on whatever perspective we're seeing.
The perspective of life we can see what is proper or valid for life to exist and continue existing. Just because it's natural , something you were born with, doesn't make it valid automatically.
I could make an example but that is what the debate is for. Save all that for the debate.
No one is asking for a cure. Homosexuality is acceptable, when will you accept it?
And yet atheists still exist.
Nobody is not an agnostic no thanks to this debate, nobody.
Who has become an atheist from this debate?
Those are the accurate votes .
Topic statement holds true . We agree there.
I think I've said all I need about this topic. If you still are not understanding, we can have a discussion later.
Any takers, want to take a stab at it?
Believing there is no God and not believing there is do not conflict but harmonize.
You guys are funny with your denial of many things.
One of you has got to be on this site to lie on the scripture. Plenty here that take the vote I think.
It's sad that this is so true. For many of us to break out of this system, is death.
All of you are in support of lying on the scripture. This person stating what the scripture have not said.
I wonder are some of you guys undercover pedophilia supporters.
Doesn't matter. This person is obsessed with this topic.
No takers I guess. Yes no controversy on this topic.
It doesn't matter the rules except for just proving the point.
Do I have any takers?
I'm starting to think this is a non controversial topic.
Now why should I take the other side of the debate?
Just so it's harder for me to argue I guess. I can see what's going on here.
Get out of here.
I don't have to fall for that.
Y'all are good debaters. Knock out that more challenging side.
Yes, the Con side stance is about it being wrong to oppose outright.
I don't believe I can . But for you not to walk away empty handed, Romans 1:25-32 tells you the worth of death and the wages or payment for sin is death.
So in a roundabout way, that first chapter is telling you what some sins are. The opposite of those would be righteousness or non-sins.
Wow two hours. I would of liked to see some points.
When it comes to winning a debate here, I put forth the following.
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.
That's all. It's the popular versus the unpopular echo chamber. But this is a school. One day somebody somewhere, with something will click.
Good counter points from the Con side on the serial killer and hitting the hand with the hammer.
Whoa, that was something else there.
My aren't we greedy. I believe others wanted in on this topic. There'll be most likely duplicate arguments.
Do we have any takers?
Otherwise the topic is non-disputable.
Likewise.
Yes sometimes I don't read certain things no matter how true they are. Well a lot of times I don't do that but it is what it is.
Yes please, let there be nobody to take the time out to read those horrible hateful degrading arguments.
Not-ah.
My arguments are valid regardless because they're the truth and that's justification for why anyone would not want to debate this irrefutable position, period.
Yes indeed.
Unless you meant last round of the first round. That wasn't very specific. I don't fully get what the issue is. Maybe because you're on the CON side, PRO side is supposed to argue first. But I didn't see anything specified in that way either.
I think I misunderstood. I believe you were requesting me to put the verbage in the 4th round.
So, this point and position is valid like the other debate concerning the same.
Does anyone else want to answer the question?
No, too scared.
Dishonest.
Truly dishonest. The scripture says what it says. You calling it a lie. Wow .
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
You can't silence me. Freedom of speech, everybody has a voice.
They wanted to silence Christ Jesus, the prophets, ministers moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. Protesters, activists, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Martin Luther King Jr. , Bruce Lee. Even adding D.J. Trump to it.
Whatever which a way it comes out, the argumentation I used based on what abortion supporters would say is strong enough to have made abortion legal .
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place, but that would be irrelevant as there are no guns to get rid of."
Thank you very much for conceding to my point. Don't try to backpedal with the "but". People always try to do that and there's no need less you stand contradicted.
You already agree something else would substitute, so it's equivalent. It doesn't matter what we have. You can remove anything you want. There'll just be something else and something else and something else. It's the heart of man, not the inventions.
"Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side."
Proving it in some other debate. Not this one. That's not what this one is about.
"Can something else be used in the place of guns?
Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.
[citation needed] [proof needed]"
In answer to the first question, you just conceded that.
Let me play it back for you.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Do you not even believe what you just stated? Where's the proof on that?
If a gun does not exist, an alternate weapon can or will be used.
Do you need proof that terrorist attacks have happened? Was that an illusion in the media? Were those buildings not really demolished?
Come on , let's face this .
"Have you forgotten what bombs can do?
Do you remember the attacks of September 11?
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. "
Literally downplaying people that have perished. Names engraved on walls and memorials and you're measuring significance.
Tunneling on robbery.
When are you going to look at the context of the entire world?
Mankind's destruction encompasses more than the end result of robbery, murder, getting even, going to war, etc .
"Most people can get access to firearms and most deaths of violence are caused by it, and bombs are not that destructive. "
Just getting repetitive.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
I don't know what you mean by " not that destructive ". I don't know if you're just measuring by numbers in fatalities or actually dealing with what a bomb is.
The very nature of what it can do. A bomb going off in my lap, what do you think is left of me? I'm pretty well destroyed. A grenade is thrown at me. I step on a mine, it's crazy to think not much is destructive. Ok maybe I'm not completely blown to smithereens. But I'm dead just like a gun shot to the head, I'm dead .
"over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above."
Due to people using guns. Get it right. We lock up people,not guns. People are the problem so we get rid of them putting them on death row.
I believe World War one happened so I don't need a source to it. I already know it.
"In all respect, this is less of a total lie than what my opponent proposed due to me using authentic sourced to back up a claim and he just used pure speculation despite big sources disagreeing with him. Calling this "brainwashed liberal garbage" is bad conduct nevertheless."
Call on evidence on yourself.
Let me play it back for you about guns.
"If they never existed, then something else will take its place"
Don't tell me this is a lie. People are in agreement and don't even catch it.
At this point it appears we have exhausted everything . It's getting repetitious with points. We're going in circles.
In there next round you can broach new points. I can't say all my points were addressed. You've repeated things back to me like I haven't already stated them.
Unless you have anything new to introduce, this is pretty much a rap.
We agree, we have the same position. Not sure what the hang up is .
Another debate with no true opposing sides.
"Being a boss in a business requires you to respect the fact that if nobody demands what you supply at the quality, in the way and/or at the price you provide it... you will go bankrupt."
We agree, we have the same position. Don't tell me I'm the boss of a consumer with the power to bankrupt my store. Quit the wavering.
So can atheism be defined as such. See, it's not the "belief" part to put so much emphasis on. It's the subject, the "what", the thing that the belief/disbelief is circled around.
Theism is simply a lack of belief.
Case and point. Either that or bias.
You guys that say it's possible to change belief systems, I truly think that you have not understood a word I've said.
I sincerely believe live debates would convey much greater understanding.
We'll still have the "race " problem y'all so we've all lost.
Begin to exist to exist means looking at a newborn seeing, observing all of its functions.
Everything is occurring, growing, developing for it to live, not die. We inevitably die but it doesn't look that way from the beginning. That's why it has an inconsistent read. Based on perspective.
Validity is determined of itself based on whatever perspective we're seeing.
The perspective of life we can see what is proper or valid for life to exist and continue existing. Just because it's natural , something you were born with, doesn't make it valid automatically.
I could make an example but that is what the debate is for. Save all that for the debate.
Go easy on the one who accepted. They moved too fast. We know not all people accept same sex marriage. We know I'm right.
I do agree with you guys when something is non-controversial. It's just the truth and a hallelujah and amen to that.