To prove the statement incorrect, someone would have to show that they can be religious while having scientific proof of their religion at the same time . It's an oxymoron which looks like is more clearer now than ever before.
That's very good sir . We agree which may not make this debatable after all but you never know sometimes.
Some natural things are inherently good and some are not, so being that ***some*** are not, that makes it possible for a least one single natural thing, *a natural thing * , singular to not be innately good.
Appreciate those who see it's about what you do with power. That was the key word "do". People can be so blind thinking it's a beauty to have a free spirit but free in spirit to do what? A life of burden, drugs and vile acts and destruction and resistance to guidance which I guess is perceived as control and domination.
Funny thing is we both agree. However different we choose to express the agreement. People know the body rejects certain things due to nature, people know the truth . The bias and liberalism run rampant.
Same sex marriage /homosexuality are on the table. Now if you don't care about what I mean , don't communicate with a person in that manner. That's what communication is. You have to be attentive to what I'm communicating.
The debate is over . We agree of the bodily parts not accepting homosexuality due to their conflicting natures. The nature of one substance linking to a different one versus the nature of the same ingredient linking with that one .
"Anatomically does refer to the mind or is the brain, not a bodily structure?"
Upon doing a google search definition, it states the science of bodily structure especially in dissection. So any part of the body is anatomical. Namely, the point of the sexual reproductive equipment and they do not fit the nature or role other than in the location of heterosexuality.
"My point is, this entire "criticism" is nonsensical, and relying on the Pro's interpretation of "common sense", a term I'm sure the voters are tired of being used to prove something. "
If it's subjective intrepretation, then common sense would be to forget about taking on the debate. If you perceive somebody to be just too much away from reality as you see it, save yourself the trouble.
Do you know what I mean?
"The question is , for who's or what purpose?
Rhetorical, it's used to set up a point I was about to make which you seem to not understand the purpose of. "
Well squash it then or otherwise answer the question. See these questions help you to get specific and to the truth that you evade.
"Exactly, and I have already explained myself in my first round, how the "design" of the mind and of the organs themself don't necessarily reject homosexuality, "
What do you mean by "don't necessarily"?
Are you saying there's no need but still an ability to be done so?
The mind obviously has ability to accept or reject the idea of homosexuality. The body is able to reject smoke as it is a substance forbidden to the lungs .
"No, this is an attempt from Pro to move the goalposts, an informal fallacy which attempts to undermine an argument by not accepting it, even though it has been validated, notice that there is no actual reason for this besides, "its vague and we can use loopholes" what sort of loopholes? Which am I using? '"
You tell me sir or maam. I don't know what you mean by sexuality. I don't know which form of sexuality and under what context.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying about loopholes. The more broad and less specific a situation is, the more you can get away with something desirable. Like rules to an organization or club. If a rule, isn't specific enough, a way can be found around the rule to do an act that appears to or could violate the rule but technically legal.
"How is it vague whenever you used "Nobody" in your resolution? "
It's vague upon disregarding the whole debate description. That's why the description is there.
"I would also bring up the fact that there are several pleasure receptors in the brain and reproductive organs, so no, sexual intercourse isn't even just for reproduction, they are also clearly "designed" or at more accurately adapted and evolved in such a way to where pleasure was also a goal"
Sexual intercourse is not the topic. You can throw this out now.
"Therefore even if Mall was correct in the angle that they were looking at this, they would be wrong because the body at least, "partially accepts homosexuality" using his terms."
Of course shifting the purpose of something as in regards to the broad subject of sexuality to just being pleasure. We can fit a lot of things under that umbrella that appear to comply.
But we're dealing with the function , role or use of organs. So that is very specific as it has us look at to why and what the function or role is.
"Sexual organs don't have nature, they have functions. "
Its nature is the function. It's in my nature to see. Seeing is a function or work of my eyes within. All nature is , is that what is within. No finicky business over that. If you feel more comfortable with the word function in the place of nature, go head on. It still has no function for homosexual behavior.
"Are you claiming that the only purpose of the penis and vagina are for sexual reproduction? Because as I have pointed out you can be gay and contribute to that. As a male, you can donate sperm, as a female you can choose to be inseminated. Either way, there is no need for a heterosexual pairing, and it is not mutually exclusive."
I'm making no claims other than to the truth about sexual reproductive organs. You said yourself about what's needed for sexual reproduction. Don't turn around and say there's no pairing going on there.
I've made no reference to sexual intercourse, a man and woman getting together. All you have to stick with is the nature or preferred by you , the function of organs. Which means you're just in more agreement but I understand that you may have accepted this debate too quickly without complete understanding of what was being said and not said. Jumping the gun as they say.
People accept meaning by conscious choice. Is that right?
You dismiss this question again, you indirectly concede that I'm right, your wrong.
Let me ask, do you agree that the body rejects things ?
"Incorrect, something can be partially accepted or partially rejected. "
So that part that is accepted is not rejected , right. That's what I said.
Something is not accepted and rejected at once. Don't talk contradiction and confusion likened to the nature of homosexuality. No straddling the fence here. It's one or the other
" Again this is dishonest, the description and resolution only ever possibly allude to the, "the body" in the vaguest sense of the word. I refuse to stick to Mall's vocabularies because his definitions are literally arbitrary, my definitions are from actual literary scholars, the dictionary. "
This is totally disingenuous of you to argue with someone deliberately dismissing what they're communicating. If you don't understand something, you ask questions like I do. You don't ask, you accept a debate unsure of what a person may mean hoping it all works out any kind of way like the nature of homosexuality.
"Second of all, Mall continuously attempts to point out that the "function of the body rejects homosexuality" because they can not produce viable offspring. This is quite simply Mall repeating their point over and over again, that the body does not function in a way viable with homosexuality. Except, again, this is presuming that the body only accepts things on an anatomical level, which is false, as I have already pointed out, and I extend those points. "
Not quite as this is too simplified. You already proved my point for me when mentioning the following : " Sperm and an egg are necessary, the obvious alluding is simple, have the male ejaculate in a tube or something else that's tight and insert it into the female. "
This is the nature of those sexual reproductive organs . That's not accepting a homosexual nature to do what you , you just said. Otherwise they would be the same organs.
The word nobody was used in the context of the description which is the body. You want to be finicky about the way the word is phrased, you can't prove that I've said all people in their minds reject homosexuality.
To add on top of this, let's say what I mean by "nobody" the way you think , something that contradicts the description or so you assume, is " no person ". Nobody meaning no person. Follow this right here . I already indicated where I said "No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
The context is totally cyclic and cohesive. Understand all of the context, don't assume what is meant.
"As any voter can note by now, Mall has completely ignored my actual argumentation, instead of dismissing it by questioning simple terms such as, "Sexual Intercourse" and claiming that this is only looking at it from an anatomical perspective. "
The difference between no body and nobody is a space between the letters. The rest is up to context . I can choose to phrase it as nobody or no body. The context is clear to what I'm referring to.
From the first round this is highlighted in case you forgot or you're negligent, : "All parallels to no*body* accepting ."
"Everybody or "each body" so we don't get lost in understanding of what's being conveyed, will reject homosexuality due to the sexual organs being denied to reproduce an offspring "
From the description :
"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
So in this segment, I'm using the word person synonymous with body.
"No, I make an objection, "Nobody" and "No body" are clearly different words, they have never meant the same thing, they mean completely separate things with completely separate connotations, having your own interpretations of definitions and such is fine, conflating two words because you realize one doesn't match your intent is dishonest and fallacious. The same goes for the other words Mall attempts to try to redefine with no justification."
From the description : "according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body. "
The context of the debate is clear here. Reference to the body is made. It is made because the meaning of the word "body" has multiple meanings.
Also, it doesn't make sense about no one in existence. This is about acceptance. That's a positive , conscious position to take. You have to exist with a conscious mind in order to do so.
*****See you have to really think here.******
The supreme court would laugh you out of their court.
The court didn't declare mass destruction to establish "equality" that would make a more accepting society.
They clearly just amended laws. You guys are going to have to start being honest as we can see this is going on today. So how is it a solution to reverse the wheels of progress? You want to keep pushing towards that end goal making more changes, ***improving***
the present situation.
You guys just can't admit this defeatist , genocide , terrorist move is the opposite of a positive thing . Throwing out a bill doesn't mean it was paid.
I won't question right now , that a "temporary solution" is an actual solution.
But keep thinking. It can be easy to avoid a problem and not improve a situation.
Just by deductive reasoning, if things have changed within the past decades concerning equality and justice, why wouldn't there be something to further improve and continue the progression of the positive things to the point of no more "race" problem?
Don't tell me we've just gotten complacent with little changes .
Same conditions as last time . You can see the same thing reiterated here.
I understand folks was confusing the word ***solve** with ***avoid*** but this challenge just as before never challenged how do we go about avoiding a problem.
I see there are still no takers . You concede you have no proposal to a solution just like before.
This is your chance.
You just got to think. It may not come to you right away.
What could it be? What could you say that would even make a so called homophobe accept homosexuality?
Also, it doesn't make sense about no one in existence. This is about acceptance. That's a positive , conscious position to take. You have to exist with a conscious mind in order to do so.
I agree with the voters. There is plenty wrong with the phrase "white power" upon demonstrating so . That's the whole point. The truth is what it is each and every time.
You won't have to play devil's advocate by not choosing a self destruct proposal.
Just think critically , a little harder and come up with something in benefit to us all. It may take some time but just let me know when that eureka moment hits.
No easy way out, no short cuts home. No easy way out so giving in can be wrong.
Your proposal is to solve the problem, not hide from.
Keeping the positives would be an improvement over eliminating the positives with the negatives. If it isn't , you have to demonstrate how getting rid of a positive is better than keeping it. Something positive, something that benefits, you'd have to demonstrate having no benefit , no benefit, no benefit is better, is better, is better , is better than having a benefit.
I'm telling you , any chance to avoid refutation, you will take it. I'll resist avoiding to answer your questions. I got no place to hide.
"The current state of race relations is overwhelmingly negative. America was swept by race riots protesting the killing of an unarmed black man [3]. China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people [4]. Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases [5]. Since the negatives outweigh the positives, eliminating humanity would be a net improvement to race relations. to hide from."
Oh so you do have an idea of what "race relations" is. Don't do that disingenuous mess again.
"Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer."Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer.
Con failed to define proper treatment, ceding his authority to define it. So far, the closest thing he has offered to a definition is that it is defined by the person receiving it, which is demonstrably false. On the other hand, I have provided a definition based off what was written in the description. For these reasons, voters should prefer my definition."
I can't fail a test you never gave. You never asked the question, so how can I fail to answer it?
You don't understand the description or ignored much of it and came with a half hearted proposal that suggests our hearts to cease from beating.
Ignoring what somebody has to say or could say like they have no answer or reply is dishonest.
"Con drops that proper racial treatment is determined by the courts, which disproves his claim that treatment is determined by whoever receives it. Extend this argument."
This is STRAWMAN fallacy. I never made a statement that "proper racial treatment" is determined by the courts.
What is nothing? Somebody says it involves no thing of a car or nothing of driving one at least. So everything else that fits that response is nothing but not so.
What is sex? Certainly not playing video games somebody says. If that's all it is , then everything else I do , go to school, go to work, play with the dog , play with the children, pay taxes, talk to a minister, talk to a parent, etc. is sex. No, not correct, rethink that.
Again, what is a car? A car doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. What is justice? It's something that doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. This tells me nothing or not a thing of what they are. So therefore the language won't make sense when I have a mess of words all over the place with no definitions . I say something like I'm driving my justice in to get its tires rotated is asinine. Look at these cars or justices on the road. By those so called definitions that tells you what something is not, everything is so broad and non-specific because I define multiple things with the same so called, so called definition and these are really different things. You should see by now that this doesn't work. It's just plain silly.
Nothing is no thing or something without nothing. So it is something so the definition****is telling you what that thing is*****.
What is this ? Nothing. What is the what? A nothing. The keyword is ***what**. The ***what*** exists. That's why often times when we argue or talk about pre-existence, it doesn't include the condition of nothingness as that condition didn't even exist. Nothingness is understood as it is perceived to be which that is according to our reality. But according to pre-existence of everything, that reality or existence wouldn't exist either
"Definition of nothing:
"1: not any thing : no thing" [1]
The word "nothing" is defined by what it is not. Con's argument fails."
What is nothing? I'm asking ****what it is ****still. Not what it isn't. What it isn't would be telling me anything other than what it is which could be anything that isn't a void. A void is a thing as it has substance which makes it real for us to identify when it's present.
Your response didn't say it was not stated . You just said not explicitly stated. So yes it was still stated just stated indirectly and I went over with you on why the description is calling for something you didn't provide.
This was your response to "the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence."
Your response:
"Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places."
You added the word "explicitly". I'm agreeing it's not explicit or *****verbatim**** or ******direct****.
"Con has conceded that the description does not explicitly require humanity's existence. My other arguments will deal with his assertion that the description implicitly requires it."
The description still ***says**** what it says . The keyword you added was ****explicit****.
To prove the statement incorrect, someone would have to show that they can be religious while having scientific proof of their religion at the same time . It's an oxymoron which looks like is more clearer now than ever before.
Yes sir. Well the only way to know if there are new arguments is if we got some takers .
Yes sir.
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
That's very good sir . We agree which may not make this debatable after all but you never know sometimes.
Some natural things are inherently good and some are not, so being that ***some*** are not, that makes it possible for a least one single natural thing, *a natural thing * , singular to not be innately good.
We agree all the way.
We see eye to eye. No takers on this topic, you all can concede that the topic statement is true.
Yes there is no scripture that says three separate beings. No argument there so the forfeit.
Perhaps not all as I discuss what you can call exceptions to the rule in the extended breakdown.
Appreciate those who see it's about what you do with power. That was the key word "do". People can be so blind thinking it's a beauty to have a free spirit but free in spirit to do what? A life of burden, drugs and vile acts and destruction and resistance to guidance which I guess is perceived as control and domination.
Yes sir yes sir.
Funny thing is we both agree. However different we choose to express the agreement. People know the body rejects certain things due to nature, people know the truth . The bias and liberalism run rampant.
Same sex marriage /homosexuality are on the table. Now if you don't care about what I mean , don't communicate with a person in that manner. That's what communication is. You have to be attentive to what I'm communicating.
Might as well say all cases. One side trying to compromise while the other isn't. Forget about that.
Going by the last comment, there's nothing valid or consistent about atheism or else you can turn someone on to its position via it's validity.
Means all people would accept homosexuality/ same sex marriage. No one would be against it including who you call homophobes.
There's nothing wrong with me owning you as a slave in other words of the comments.
The debate is over . We agree of the bodily parts not accepting homosexuality due to their conflicting natures. The nature of one substance linking to a different one versus the nature of the same ingredient linking with that one .
"Anatomically does refer to the mind or is the brain, not a bodily structure?"
Upon doing a google search definition, it states the science of bodily structure especially in dissection. So any part of the body is anatomical. Namely, the point of the sexual reproductive equipment and they do not fit the nature or role other than in the location of heterosexuality.
"My point is, this entire "criticism" is nonsensical, and relying on the Pro's interpretation of "common sense", a term I'm sure the voters are tired of being used to prove something. "
If it's subjective intrepretation, then common sense would be to forget about taking on the debate. If you perceive somebody to be just too much away from reality as you see it, save yourself the trouble.
Do you know what I mean?
"The question is , for who's or what purpose?
Rhetorical, it's used to set up a point I was about to make which you seem to not understand the purpose of. "
Well squash it then or otherwise answer the question. See these questions help you to get specific and to the truth that you evade.
"Exactly, and I have already explained myself in my first round, how the "design" of the mind and of the organs themself don't necessarily reject homosexuality, "
What do you mean by "don't necessarily"?
Are you saying there's no need but still an ability to be done so?
The mind obviously has ability to accept or reject the idea of homosexuality. The body is able to reject smoke as it is a substance forbidden to the lungs .
"No, this is an attempt from Pro to move the goalposts, an informal fallacy which attempts to undermine an argument by not accepting it, even though it has been validated, notice that there is no actual reason for this besides, "its vague and we can use loopholes" what sort of loopholes? Which am I using? '"
You tell me sir or maam. I don't know what you mean by sexuality. I don't know which form of sexuality and under what context.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying about loopholes. The more broad and less specific a situation is, the more you can get away with something desirable. Like rules to an organization or club. If a rule, isn't specific enough, a way can be found around the rule to do an act that appears to or could violate the rule but technically legal.
"How is it vague whenever you used "Nobody" in your resolution? "
It's vague upon disregarding the whole debate description. That's why the description is there.
"I would also bring up the fact that there are several pleasure receptors in the brain and reproductive organs, so no, sexual intercourse isn't even just for reproduction, they are also clearly "designed" or at more accurately adapted and evolved in such a way to where pleasure was also a goal"
Sexual intercourse is not the topic. You can throw this out now.
"Therefore even if Mall was correct in the angle that they were looking at this, they would be wrong because the body at least, "partially accepts homosexuality" using his terms."
Of course shifting the purpose of something as in regards to the broad subject of sexuality to just being pleasure. We can fit a lot of things under that umbrella that appear to comply.
But we're dealing with the function , role or use of organs. So that is very specific as it has us look at to why and what the function or role is.
"Sexual organs don't have nature, they have functions. "
Its nature is the function. It's in my nature to see. Seeing is a function or work of my eyes within. All nature is , is that what is within. No finicky business over that. If you feel more comfortable with the word function in the place of nature, go head on. It still has no function for homosexual behavior.
"Are you claiming that the only purpose of the penis and vagina are for sexual reproduction? Because as I have pointed out you can be gay and contribute to that. As a male, you can donate sperm, as a female you can choose to be inseminated. Either way, there is no need for a heterosexual pairing, and it is not mutually exclusive."
I'm making no claims other than to the truth about sexual reproductive organs. You said yourself about what's needed for sexual reproduction. Don't turn around and say there's no pairing going on there.
I've made no reference to sexual intercourse, a man and woman getting together. All you have to stick with is the nature or preferred by you , the function of organs. Which means you're just in more agreement but I understand that you may have accepted this debate too quickly without complete understanding of what was being said and not said. Jumping the gun as they say.
"Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality:"
People accept meaning by conscious choice. Is that right?
You dismiss this question again, you indirectly concede that I'm right, your wrong.
Let me ask, do you agree that the body rejects things ?
"Incorrect, something can be partially accepted or partially rejected. "
So that part that is accepted is not rejected , right. That's what I said.
Something is not accepted and rejected at once. Don't talk contradiction and confusion likened to the nature of homosexuality. No straddling the fence here. It's one or the other
" Again this is dishonest, the description and resolution only ever possibly allude to the, "the body" in the vaguest sense of the word. I refuse to stick to Mall's vocabularies because his definitions are literally arbitrary, my definitions are from actual literary scholars, the dictionary. "
This is totally disingenuous of you to argue with someone deliberately dismissing what they're communicating. If you don't understand something, you ask questions like I do. You don't ask, you accept a debate unsure of what a person may mean hoping it all works out any kind of way like the nature of homosexuality.
"Second of all, Mall continuously attempts to point out that the "function of the body rejects homosexuality" because they can not produce viable offspring. This is quite simply Mall repeating their point over and over again, that the body does not function in a way viable with homosexuality. Except, again, this is presuming that the body only accepts things on an anatomical level, which is false, as I have already pointed out, and I extend those points. "
Not quite as this is too simplified. You already proved my point for me when mentioning the following : " Sperm and an egg are necessary, the obvious alluding is simple, have the male ejaculate in a tube or something else that's tight and insert it into the female. "
This is the nature of those sexual reproductive organs . That's not accepting a homosexual nature to do what you , you just said. Otherwise they would be the same organs.
The word nobody was used in the context of the description which is the body. You want to be finicky about the way the word is phrased, you can't prove that I've said all people in their minds reject homosexuality.
To add on top of this, let's say what I mean by "nobody" the way you think , something that contradicts the description or so you assume, is " no person ". Nobody meaning no person. Follow this right here . I already indicated where I said "No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
The context is totally cyclic and cohesive. Understand all of the context, don't assume what is meant.
"As any voter can note by now, Mall has completely ignored my actual argumentation, instead of dismissing it by questioning simple terms such as, "Sexual Intercourse" and claiming that this is only looking at it from an anatomical perspective. "
How am I dismissive by asking a question?
You're dismissive by not answering the question.
The difference between no body and nobody is a space between the letters. The rest is up to context . I can choose to phrase it as nobody or no body. The context is clear to what I'm referring to.
From the first round this is highlighted in case you forgot or you're negligent, : "All parallels to no*body* accepting ."
"Everybody or "each body" so we don't get lost in understanding of what's being conveyed, will reject homosexuality due to the sexual organs being denied to reproduce an offspring "
From the description :
"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
So in this segment, I'm using the word person synonymous with body.
"No, I make an objection, "Nobody" and "No body" are clearly different words, they have never meant the same thing, they mean completely separate things with completely separate connotations, having your own interpretations of definitions and such is fine, conflating two words because you realize one doesn't match your intent is dishonest and fallacious. The same goes for the other words Mall attempts to try to redefine with no justification."
From the description : "according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body. "
The context of the debate is clear here. Reference to the body is made. It is made because the meaning of the word "body" has multiple meanings.
Also, it doesn't make sense about no one in existence. This is about acceptance. That's a positive , conscious position to take. You have to exist with a conscious mind in order to do so.
*****See you have to really think here.******
The supreme court would laugh you out of their court.
The court didn't declare mass destruction to establish "equality" that would make a more accepting society.
They clearly just amended laws. You guys are going to have to start being honest as we can see this is going on today. So how is it a solution to reverse the wheels of progress? You want to keep pushing towards that end goal making more changes, ***improving***
the present situation.
You guys just can't admit this defeatist , genocide , terrorist move is the opposite of a positive thing . Throwing out a bill doesn't mean it was paid.
I won't question right now , that a "temporary solution" is an actual solution.
But keep thinking. It can be easy to avoid a problem and not improve a situation.
Just by deductive reasoning, if things have changed within the past decades concerning equality and justice, why wouldn't there be something to further improve and continue the progression of the positive things to the point of no more "race" problem?
Don't tell me we've just gotten complacent with little changes .
Same conditions as last time . You can see the same thing reiterated here.
I understand folks was confusing the word ***solve** with ***avoid*** but this challenge just as before never challenged how do we go about avoiding a problem.
I see there are still no takers . You concede you have no proposal to a solution just like before.
This is your chance.
You just got to think. It may not come to you right away.
What could it be? What could you say that would even make a so called homophobe accept homosexuality?
Also, it doesn't make sense about no one in existence. This is about acceptance. That's a positive , conscious position to take. You have to exist with a conscious mind in order to do so.
See you have to really think here.
We both agree so both win for the price of one.
I agree with the voters. There is plenty wrong with the phrase "white power" upon demonstrating so . That's the whole point. The truth is what it is each and every time.
You won't have to play devil's advocate by not choosing a self destruct proposal.
Just think critically , a little harder and come up with something in benefit to us all. It may take some time but just let me know when that eureka moment hits.
No easy way out, no short cuts home. No easy way out so giving in can be wrong.
If you want to improve "race" relations to rid of the "racism", vote yay here.
If you want to end all humanity to not deal with " racism", vote nay here.
Your proposal is to solve the problem, not hide from.
Keeping the positives would be an improvement over eliminating the positives with the negatives. If it isn't , you have to demonstrate how getting rid of a positive is better than keeping it. Something positive, something that benefits, you'd have to demonstrate having no benefit , no benefit, no benefit is better, is better, is better , is better than having a benefit.
I'm telling you , any chance to avoid refutation, you will take it. I'll resist avoiding to answer your questions. I got no place to hide.
"The current state of race relations is overwhelmingly negative. America was swept by race riots protesting the killing of an unarmed black man [3]. China is carrying out a genocide against the Uygher people [4]. Even people who are not perceived as racist still have and are influenced by implicit racial biases [5]. Since the negatives outweigh the positives, eliminating humanity would be a net improvement to race relations. to hide from."
Oh so you do have an idea of what "race relations" is. Don't do that disingenuous mess again.
"Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer."Note that Con never defined race relations. Attempting to draw conclusions about the implications of a definition that was never introduced is wholly without foundation. If Con wishes to argue that race relations concern how we live with one another, that is an assertion he must support. Otherwise, it can be dismissed by Hitchen's Razor. [2]"
So "race relations" is something else that you don't know the meaning to. I mean how much don't you know but decide to take on a debate with?
By this logic every word in the description should be defined or asked a definition for. This is why I leave it to you guys to ask. Where else is the line drawn? Is it at "please" or "send" or "comment" or should you be told what they are ? Really I just asked a question to you about what something concerns and I get a deflection instead of an answer.
Con failed to define proper treatment, ceding his authority to define it. So far, the closest thing he has offered to a definition is that it is defined by the person receiving it, which is demonstrably false. On the other hand, I have provided a definition based off what was written in the description. For these reasons, voters should prefer my definition."
I can't fail a test you never gave. You never asked the question, so how can I fail to answer it?
You don't understand the description or ignored much of it and came with a half hearted proposal that suggests our hearts to cease from beating.
Ignoring what somebody has to say or could say like they have no answer or reply is dishonest.
"Con drops that proper racial treatment is determined by the courts, which disproves his claim that treatment is determined by whoever receives it. Extend this argument."
This is STRAWMAN fallacy. I never made a statement that "proper racial treatment" is determined by the courts.
What is nothing? Somebody says it involves no thing of a car or nothing of driving one at least. So everything else that fits that response is nothing but not so.
What is sex? Certainly not playing video games somebody says. If that's all it is , then everything else I do , go to school, go to work, play with the dog , play with the children, pay taxes, talk to a minister, talk to a parent, etc. is sex. No, not correct, rethink that.
Again, what is a car? A car doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. What is justice? It's something that doesn't involve "racial " mistreatment. This tells me nothing or not a thing of what they are. So therefore the language won't make sense when I have a mess of words all over the place with no definitions . I say something like I'm driving my justice in to get its tires rotated is asinine. Look at these cars or justices on the road. By those so called definitions that tells you what something is not, everything is so broad and non-specific because I define multiple things with the same so called, so called definition and these are really different things. You should see by now that this doesn't work. It's just plain silly.
Nothing is no thing or something without nothing. So it is something so the definition****is telling you what that thing is*****.
What is this ? Nothing. What is the what? A nothing. The keyword is ***what**. The ***what*** exists. That's why often times when we argue or talk about pre-existence, it doesn't include the condition of nothingness as that condition didn't even exist. Nothingness is understood as it is perceived to be which that is according to our reality. But according to pre-existence of everything, that reality or existence wouldn't exist either
"Definition of nothing:
"1: not any thing : no thing" [1]
The word "nothing" is defined by what it is not. Con's argument fails."
What is nothing? I'm asking ****what it is ****still. Not what it isn't. What it isn't would be telling me anything other than what it is which could be anything that isn't a void. A void is a thing as it has substance which makes it real for us to identify when it's present.
Your response didn't say it was not stated . You just said not explicitly stated. So yes it was still stated just stated indirectly and I went over with you on why the description is calling for something you didn't provide.
This was your response to "the description stated has to involve humanity still in existence."
Your response:
"Note that this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the description. Nevertheless, Con argues that it is implied in several places."
You added the word "explicitly". I'm agreeing it's not explicit or *****verbatim**** or ******direct****.
"Con has conceded that the description does not explicitly require humanity's existence. My other arguments will deal with his assertion that the description implicitly requires it."
The description still ***says**** what it says . The keyword you added was ****explicit****.