Total posts: 57
Posted in:
I have decided to change my mind. Volunteer no longer required
Just to let anyone reading this know that a volunteer is no longer required.
As the debater decided my help in finding him a new opponent was not required and he simply put up a second debate on the subject whilst refusing to cancel the first debate and insisting I forfeit, I have decided to temporarily change my views on the subject and instead of debating him once, I will debate him twice.
Pro abortion arguments
If anyone wishes to express their opinions regards to Pro choice arguments, please feel free to do so here.
Created:
Posted in:
Pro Abortionist required for a debate
I have made an error in the debate Resolved: Abortion is, on balance, moral. .
I am not actually pro Abortion, nor anti Abortion, but I took on this debate because I noticed it was a new user and felt it would be good to give him/her a debate. However only afterwards did I realise (the instant I pressed accept) that the user put themselves forward as Con.
I was originally intending to argue from the position that "it is unconfirmed" that Abortion, is on balance, moral.
I have thought about continuing with the debate with the same argument as Pro, but that would only work if Con's opening argument is not the exact same.
Also if it was one of my tongue n cheek debates I would happily continue and try and test the argument. However as abortion is a serious subject and issue I do not feel right arguing a position I do not hold. Cannot bring myself to do it.
So I have asked for the debate to be put back in to "open challenge", and the poster has been asked if this is ok, but appears to be unwilling. Which of course the user is perfectly entitled to do.
So are there any Pro Abortionists that would be willing to take my place in this debate please?
Created:
Posted in:
Yahoo Answers closing on April 20th
Yahoo Answers is shutting up shop on April 20th.
Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Copious amount of addicted users begging for a replacement idea
At the moment the Yahoo Answers question and answers site is full of panicking users desperately asking for ideas for an alternative.
What are some good alternatives of Yahoo Answer? ?
Everyone from here should answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to Debateart
As it says on the tin.
This is a real chance to get lots more debaters and potential donaters.
Everyone should go to Yahoo Answers and answer as many questions as possible leaving a link to debateart.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
One should be aware that the Bible uses figurative writing styles, it weaves in and out of literal and figurative through the whole book.
In which case it is hard to take anything it says seriously, as it is only figuritively speaking.
Modern day science does not speak figuritively, therefore not compatible with Genesis texts.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hmmmm, not sure the word "can" was mentioned.
I read it as "do".
But of course. One can believe that God started the process of evolution.
But this was not written in Genesis.
Therefore Genesis is not the foundations for this belief.
Unless one believes Genesis was speaking allegorically.
But then we can only go by what Genesis says factually.
Allegory is just an assumption
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
And that is my stance on the subject.
If you read my thread, i even mention that myself. That Abiogenesis is what it would be.
I state it at the bottom of round 3
Now if i "were" to argue in favour of my opponents argument, i think i would be looking more along the lines at the fifth day, below
Fifth dayAnd God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
And this is consistent with the Scientific abiogenesis theory of life evolving from the Oceans, as shown below
The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
However there are still huge differences between Genesis, and Abiogenesis, and it seems Genesis would be an extremely primitive form of Abiogenesis, purely based upon Humans pre-Septuagint had the same brain capacity as they do today, and had the knowledge to know that Fish likely pre-dated Man, but lacked the Scientific education to be able to give a Scientific explanation for this. The explanation was still in the evolutionary stage.
Created:
Only four days to go. I am 7-1 down. I feel that is a little harsh. You may disagree. But can we have some votes on this please. Honest votes too. If you genuinely disagree with me that is fine.
My over-all argument is apparent in my very first sentence, when i state that Genesis is mostly based on Mesopotamian mythology, and Mesopotamian mythology, which genesis is built on, is not a blue-print for evolution. And i provided examples of the mythology Genesis creation myth was b uilt upon, such as "godess Mami".
This right there in my opinion pretty much removes Genesis being compatible with modern science, which is what Charles Darwin was supporting.
Even Charles Darwins personal beliefs are not important really. The Scientific thesis he is proposing does not co-cooperate with Genesis.
Also for those that think i over used wikipedia. I only use wikipedia as a foundation to build an argument upon. I leave it to my opponent as to whether he accepts the information or wishes to challenge. If he challenges, i will then find another source. Encyclopedia Britanicca most likely. but he never made this challenge. Therefore i stuck with wikipedia.
I also admit i focus more on facts and information, than grammar. And i make a lot of slight errors regards to typos et cetera. I type very fast and should learn patience.
Those that think humour is not a good thing for a formal debate also might wish to include that as a conduct violation, as i always seek to bring a little humour in to everything, no matter how formal, and i did make an attempt to bring humour in to this debate. My opponent was a little scathing of this.
But i personally fail to see how my main two objectives, described above, about Mesopotanian mythology and modern day science being two different things were ever refuted. Modern day science is not based upon mythology, and i made it perfectly clear in my argument, that this was my main argument.
Please can we have some votes.
If you do not agree with me. I shall accept that.
Created: