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****.
"I'll lay my cards on the table: yes. This is a competitive debate. The goal is to win. You failed to define your terms. By default, you ceded your authority to define terms to me, and I have no obligation to ask what you meant."
In other words, no interest in understanding somebody. You notice that with anything, you ask questions when you're interested in something. News reporters do it with any story they're pursuing. So on your part and to what you're saying, duly noted.
Right, no dispute about what a business starter is. No problem there. But to who or whom says you're in business or you're out of business?
The perception of being a business owner is that you're the boss. You are the boss that can't dictate against shutting down shop, closing your doors when the market says so.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?"
I'm sorry I can't have a better response than what I gave.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?"
I'll answer in this way this time in that in general the topics I choose are based on common sense. Not much involves research for that you know.
"And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
I just do the best I can with the truth. I may not be understanding all that you're asking.
When you say semantics, does that mean paying attention to all words instead of just some not worrying about specificity?
Laveyan Satanism is an atheistic religion.
Now when I Google this, this is what comes up.
I mean what are the tenets of this religion? You have to deny/reject all other gods outside yourself being a god.
So maybe you guys have a fixed definition of this religion. I don't know. The source provided stated Satanism is of a philosophy and religion. It says this in the very first paragraph, segment or very early on.
I won't make the charge of your denial but atheism is not less than what it is just because of this religion.
There's no effort to try to conflate atheism and theism.
Apparently religion is not always theistic though.
I wouldn't be honest and open to questions right now if I was attempting to be disingenuous.
That's why we ask questions. It's to get clarity.
You folks act like I'm going to say one thing now and say another later.
I'll say this over and over again. You're asking questions to get clarity. You continue to ask until understanding is reached.
So the point about there being no transparency or no opportunity to obtain such of a topic is false.
If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.
Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.
I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.
"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"
I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.
"why do you never use sources?"
I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.
"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"
I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.
First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.
So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.
I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.
"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"
This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?
The biggest proof to date of a dishonest, bias site.
The person provided a source that said there is a religion involving atheists. This is part of why it's impossible to not be secure in what I say is the truth.
I think what you said just prove the topic statement true. I'm going to give this site the benefit of the doubt and you, the voters and others are just not understanding me.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
Remember guys, you make have to continue with the questions until understanding is reached. If you don't reach it, you'll have to stay in the question mode. That's just the way that is.
For those of you saying what's with all the questions, it goes back to what I offer in every debate challenge.
In order to argue, I have to ask for an explanation, clarity and focus. I have to know what the other is talking about. See I don't assume anything, try to get an implication out of something, etc.
I don't know why folks expect me to interact blindly as I'm to be not sure of what is being said.
Just the way of common sense.
You're just hung up on the idea of a test. I don't believe deep down you accept that things EXIST without evidence.
You only feel comfortable if you can test or falsify.
I keep saying the point is not about testing, not about testing, not about testing.
Like it's just a basic principle of "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
That's all I'm saying. There can be many, many, many animals I'm yet to discover. The animals I know of now may not be the only ones that exist. There's nothing strong enough of a conviction to accept or reject this.
I can see this being very hard to comprehend when you are a super hard skeptic.
Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.
I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.
I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".
A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.
We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.
Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.
You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.
You're still missing what I'm saying. Basically I'm saying the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I can live all my life and die never knowing about a particular tree's existence or species of tree or animal.
Just because I see or hear no evidence of it , it does not make it strong enough to disbelieve it.
This is what I also mean by you guys not thinking deep enough at what's being really said. Taking a superficial, surface , face value at things when the value is much greater.
Win/lose is based on the echo chamber over here. That's already been established. That's regardless of truth and education. A republican in a pool of democrats, it goes to the majority.
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.
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****.
"I'll lay my cards on the table: yes. This is a competitive debate. The goal is to win. You failed to define your terms. By default, you ceded your authority to define terms to me, and I have no obligation to ask what you meant."
In other words, no interest in understanding somebody. You notice that with anything, you ask questions when you're interested in something. News reporters do it with any story they're pursuing. So on your part and to what you're saying, duly noted.
You lose over and over when in a debate with me.
But I don't have to tell you that, comrade.
It's like a test drive for the oval office. Each candidate has a test drive.
The length of the trial can be up to the government or the votes.
The people that agree with me that's on the side of truth say I win.
So I could care less of what you think, what you think is losing.
So I would just drop this whole win or lose idea.
Looks like there is no dispute about this. Ok we're in agreement.
I guess I'm right sometimes.
Huh?
I have not. Unless you speak for everyone , I'm giving somebody a chance to make a so called case.
So when this challenge expires, case closed.
Right, no dispute about what a business starter is. No problem there. But to who or whom says you're in business or you're out of business?
The perception of being a business owner is that you're the boss. You are the boss that can't dictate against shutting down shop, closing your doors when the market says so.
Where there's no controversy, there's no disagreement.
Well this topic I guess is incontrovertible but there's enough controversy in the comments, that's for sure.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?"
I'm sorry I can't have a better response than what I gave.
"Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?"
I'll answer in this way this time in that in general the topics I choose are based on common sense. Not much involves research for that you know.
"And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
I just do the best I can with the truth. I may not be understanding all that you're asking.
When you say semantics, does that mean paying attention to all words instead of just some not worrying about specificity?
Are there any further questions?
Even though I'm trying to hide something by offering the opportunity for questions and answers.
Laveyan Satanism is an atheistic religion.
Now when I Google this, this is what comes up.
I mean what are the tenets of this religion? You have to deny/reject all other gods outside yourself being a god.
So maybe you guys have a fixed definition of this religion. I don't know. The source provided stated Satanism is of a philosophy and religion. It says this in the very first paragraph, segment or very early on.
I won't make the charge of your denial but atheism is not less than what it is just because of this religion.
There's no effort to try to conflate atheism and theism.
Apparently religion is not always theistic though.
I wouldn't be honest and open to questions right now if I was attempting to be disingenuous.
That's why we ask questions. It's to get clarity.
You folks act like I'm going to say one thing now and say another later.
I'll say this over and over again. You're asking questions to get clarity. You continue to ask until understanding is reached.
So the point about there being no transparency or no opportunity to obtain such of a topic is false.
If I'm being asked a question and not being told something, then ask.
Apparently so far, this is not controversial.
I think you guys are beginning to look at every single word in lieu of being captivated by one word or two.
"why does your topic sentence lack a noun?"
I don't know exactly how this applies. So I'll answer in a general approach. I don't see anything deficient in the title.
"why do you never use dictionary definitions?"
I can't answer this as I don't see where I ***never**** do. Now if you mean periodically, you'll have to be specific as I don't remember everything I've ever said. I think that is fair.
"why do you never use sources?"
I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on.
So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable.
"why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?"
I can't answer these questions the way you would hope for as they're loaded questions.
First off , no opinion is based in fact . That's why it's an opinion. An opinion is just what one thinks to be so, not knows.
So to approach the question this way, I'll say I argue and speak nothing but truth. You can continue to reject it or accept it.
I also want to say, if you all would simply interact this way in the debates, we can progress instead of going in circles which are pointless where no problems are resolved.
"Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?"
This is not what the topic statement is saying. The word "racism" appears not one time. You will find it no where in that statement.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean?
What is meant by "upon demonstrated as such"?
It's good that the words are being paid attention to.
When there is nothing wrong with a certain thing, we would only know when it can be shown that there is no harm by means of whatever that is.
The biggest proof to date of a dishonest, bias site.
The person provided a source that said there is a religion involving atheists. This is part of why it's impossible to not be secure in what I say is the truth.
Does anyone have any questions?
Rather, what I read is not what others read.
I guess the opposing argument is , don't believe what you read. Don't even believe the founder of the religion's book.
According to those that think so, Laveyan Satanism is not a religion involving Atheists.
I guess what I read online and in dictionaries is not others read.
Doesn't make it any less than true.
You call it denial. I call it not proving anything . So even steven.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You pick whatever you think I do is wrong and build a case for it and I attempt to refute it.
What resolution?
I think what you said just prove the topic statement true. I'm going to give this site the benefit of the doubt and you, the voters and others are just not understanding me.
Vote on that question as well.
Well , this is an opportunity to make your critique as according to what the description says. I think many of you have points to make about the debates I have . We can confront these things with a direct interaction. Your inquiries are directed at me. We communicate, I'm allowed to make a counter point. It's like moving what's said in the comments to the debate rounds. Moving the fight from outside to the ring.
I yet stand not convinced of any purported evidence. Maybe next time, same place, same channel, I'll stay tuned.
It's a no brainer. How can you argue a point when you don't see where the rebuttal is?
Who taught you guys to make an argument even when you don't know where to make it at?
That conventional mind, it's the darnest thing.
Side note: The disclaimer in each debate I'm in covers what win/lose is really all about.
A separation between that and an echo chamber.
Remember guys, you make have to continue with the questions until understanding is reached. If you don't reach it, you'll have to stay in the question mode. That's just the way that is.
For those of you saying what's with all the questions, it goes back to what I offer in every debate challenge.
In order to argue, I have to ask for an explanation, clarity and focus. I have to know what the other is talking about. See I don't assume anything, try to get an implication out of something, etc.
I don't know why folks expect me to interact blindly as I'm to be not sure of what is being said.
Just the way of common sense.
So I'm glad we got that cleared up.
How many of you think God has been proven to be real?
Excellent timekeeper you are.
You're just hung up on the idea of a test. I don't believe deep down you accept that things EXIST without evidence.
You only feel comfortable if you can test or falsify.
I keep saying the point is not about testing, not about testing, not about testing.
Like it's just a basic principle of "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
That's all I'm saying. There can be many, many, many animals I'm yet to discover. The animals I know of now may not be the only ones that exist. There's nothing strong enough of a conviction to accept or reject this.
I can see this being very hard to comprehend when you are a super hard skeptic.
Well so much was said, we can go back and forth. Maybe one day we can do informal live debates.
There is one thing for now I liked to clear my name on.
I never made a statement that Trump was or is good.
I'm going to state for the record that I never said Trump was or is not "racist".
A lot of assumptions are made off these topics.
We ought to really just stick with what we're given in text.
I'll humor you. I'm not here to disprove or prove anything except proving whether your statements hold up .
Let me also say for those unclear about source material. It is there to prove you're not being dishonest. Now I haven't had any doubt about the honesty from the other side, so why not just say what's in the source material directly?
I question the debater, ask the debater to argue, not the source. Interpretation of what you read from the writings of someone else not making arguments is another subject altogether.
You make a statement, you ought to be able to explain it on your own. If I suspect, THINK you're lying, ok , show me where you got that from.
The voters and folks alike are really under an illusion that they don't have any control over their safety ultimately .
Sad to see, not too sad as that aint me .
You're still missing what I'm saying. Basically I'm saying the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I can live all my life and die never knowing about a particular tree's existence or species of tree or animal.
Just because I see or hear no evidence of it , it does not make it strong enough to disbelieve it.
This is what I also mean by you guys not thinking deep enough at what's being really said. Taking a superficial, surface , face value at things when the value is much greater.
Win/lose is based on the echo chamber over here. That's already been established. That's regardless of truth and education. A republican in a pool of democrats, it goes to the majority.
Well lookey here, watch this , I make this clear every debate challenge and that is for clarity, send questions.
If you, you, truly don't understand something, you have no business taking the debate until there is absolutely noooo confusion about anything.
That means you know for sure what a person means and what's meant by every word used.
Those descriptions are very detailed. But when you don't understand them, seek to get understanding.
Let me ask, why don't I hear any news about something "racist" Trump did or said?
I will have to disgree with the criticisms. You can accept or reject that. That's all there is to it
I will say for sure that criticisms should be reserved for those who are lost on the meaning of pluralism. No points for getting that wrong .
The documentary is like one big verse in let's say the world of science or biology. Why? It deals with one context just as a verse does in the bible.
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.