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.
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.
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.
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 .