I'm currently on holiday but I will be back in about two weeks. Shoot me a pm if you want to debate this topic once I'm back, seems interesting and fairly straight-forward
Ephesians 4:31, NKJV. "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."
Let's get some more kindness into this conversation.
I was originally hoping someone else would accept the other debate and to hold both simultaneously, I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw that he accepted the debate again. This debate includes about 20% more argument from me so it isn't a perfect duplicate, although it is quite similar.
No worries, your debates tend to be enjoyable and you've voted on mine quite a few times. Could've strengthened your R2 $12k argument by immediately citing a study/article indicating that the monetary factor acts as an incentive to have abortions imo, other than that you did really well, loved how you consistently attacked his sources and flipped them against his own reasoning, that's something I'll work on doing myself in future debates.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) has outlined that Divine Law (i.e. the Law that has been revealed by God) which the holy Scripture is a part of, outranks the law of nations (to clarify Acts 5:29) . Hence anyone who accepts Leviticus 20:15-16 would not further require a law of nations to clarify that bestiality is against the law.
It may even be perceived as disrespectful toward God to suggest that his Divine Law requires the replication in our laws of nations to be recognised as valid.
I'm perfectly content with arguing that there is no need for bestiality to be illegal in human laws.
I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church myself, but let's try to keep this comment section a bit more civilised. Your loaded questions implying that Guitar is intentionally supporting paedophilia and part of "an ungodly church" come across quite disrespectfully.
"In all things you yourself must be an example of good behavior. Be sincere and serious in your teaching." (Titus 2:7)
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
This is not a pro-bestiality or con-bestiality debate, it is merely about whether there should be a law prohibiting bestiality, which I believe I have shown to be entirely unnecessary.
Animals are kept in small cages until they are slaughtered, calves are deprived of their mothers as early as possible, we kill male chicks by throwing them in a blender. If their right to move, or even their right to live are not recognised, then surely the lesser right of not having sexual intercourse being legally protected while the others aren't makes little sense.
Further than that, if animals suffered during or because of the intercourse, then it would be illegal anyway. A law against bestiality would be penalising a victimless crime against beings that are not recognised as parts of the moral landscape in contemporary society.
Whether we should be having intercourse with animals is distinct from the question of whether there should be laws in place that prohibit *all* bestiality. I would not have intercourse with animals, but as animal harm is already prohibited and there is no way of enforcing such a law, a bestiality law is unnecessary and futile.
Would appreciate a vote from you if you've got the time during exam season, you're probably the one that is the most interested in music on this website
I liked your cumulative case for God, your opponent's response, on the other hand, was somewhat disappointing and shows that he may not have read through your arguments but merely glanced over them.
Inductive arguments that show that it's unlikely that the Christian God exists would be sufficient. The debate title could be translated to mean "It is more likely than not that the Christian God does not exist (i.e. is fake)" as both debaters share the BoP (although you could even argue that the BoP is entirely on Con due to the wording of the resolution). There is no need for Pro to prove that God is logically impossible.
If all rounds are as brief as Sparrow's opening argument I'll vote. However, I feel like a 30 000 character opening argument from the Madman is on its way, have fun debating this topic Sparrow
I noticed it as well but didn't feel like stirring up shit over something I could well be wrong about. However, I reported Raaron's vote well before the debate ended (at least 16 hours, I believe) and there is no comment from a mod saying that the vote was found sufficient although it has the "reports have been handled" tick. I would appreciate you guys checking that vote again.
Cheers Oromagi, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5 in no time, looking forward to debating you some time soon and I hope you're not beating me too badly in the voting competition ;)
[3]
Michael also points out inconsistencies in RM’s rounds as he argued that morality is relative but at the same time praises Mandela. That’s quite irrelevant to the debate imo and even non-cognitivist ethical theories that reject objective morality nonetheless permit praising people’s behaviours (i.e. a subjectivist might say “I think human flourishing is important, Mandela supported human flourishing, therefore he is moral relative to my standards of morality”, thus it’s quite an unconvincing non-sequitur that is entirely unrelated to the debate. Michael also brought up Hitler (great) and argued that he could be deemed a hero just as much as Mandela and Malcom X (even if this were true, so what?). Michael’s biggest weakness in this debate was to simply state things (i.e. “In fact, this is the biggest hole in your entire argument.” after giving the Hitler example) without supporting this with evidence or arguments or explaining the implications and relevance to the debate of his points.
Michael finally argues that RM did not address the “lack of training” argument but since this argument is not convincing unless one assumes that if vigilante heroes were allowed, exclusively incompetent people would try to be vigilante heroes, this argument fails entirely and RM’s examples of Mandela and Malcom X who were sufficiently competent to gain universal acclaim refute Michael’s arguments.
[2] Michael responds that both of these did not fight criminals but rather governments (which is a good counter-argument if the “allowed” in the debate title refers to “allowed by the government” but rather irrelevant if it is dependent on wider society). Michael further points out that vigilante heroes could “very easily go against the desires of the majority” and that their behaviour would ergo not be condoned. Although I don’t see that as a very relevant counter-point as I believe it would be sufficient for RM to show that some vigilante heroes (i.e. those who do not go against the desires of the majority) should be allowed.
Michael further argues that “without some universal code of conduct, it will just be every man for himself” but only supports this assertion with a call to “look up Thomas Hobbes” or “just look at history for an example”. As Michael neither points to any specific examples from history and did not explain Hobbes’ arguments, we have to believe Hobbes based on his “authority” as a famous philosopher. This argument was weak as it was merely stated but hardly supported by premises and seems counter-intuitive as altruism is a common human feature and we know that at least some people still behave well when they believe no one is watching (e.g. I forgot my phone in the gym recently and it was returned to me instead of being stolen although someone could easily have stolen it).
[1] The “allowed” in the debate resolution was unclear and seemed to be switching between “condoned by the government” to “condoned by society” (i.e. when Michael pointed out that Mandela was fighting against the government, compared to when he later pointed out that some vigilante heroes may go against the desires of the majority). Furthermore, it was unclear what Pro’s BoP actually was. Does he have to show that all vigilante heroes should be allowed (which is what the “training” argument implies)? Is it sufficient to show that at least some (i.e. not none) vigilante heroes should be allowed? I believe it is the latter and since RM showed that Mandela was a vigilante hero that is praised by the people, I believe that he sufficiently established his case and fulfilled his BoP.
Michael presented two arguments for his case: 1) There is no one that can hold the vigilante heroes accountable for their actions as they are anonymous and not easily replaced by the government, and 2) they would likely lack any professional training and could thus end up putting themselves in dangerous situations that they can not get out off.
RM started out with a kritik in round 1 where he focused on the “theoretically” in the resolution and argued that vigilante heroes could “function” theoretically (although he doesn’t support this with any arguments or examples) and claims that Michael conceded this in R1 (which he does not seem to have done overtly, although I can see how he might have done it through implication as there should be no issue with a hero that is publicly known and thus can be held accountable [arg. 1] and highly trained [arg. 2]).
Michael countered RM’s kritik by pointing out that the “theoretically” in the debate title referred to the assumption that people who have sufficient power to act as vigilantes exist. RM pretty much drops his kritik after this round and instead presents examples of real-life vigilantes such as Mandela and Malcom X.
I'd take the debate if it was three rounds instead of five and the character limit was somewhere around 5000. A potential 150 000 characters are simply too time-consuming.
A voting competition is about to start in the Forum. Sign up for that and wait till tomorrow until you recast your vote to gain bonus points in the event ;)
"This is incorrect as I clearly wrote that this uncaused cause is what we call God: "This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica)." Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists, however it supports Aristotle’s Prime Mover/Aquinas’ uncaused cause.", "It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed."
"There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God." I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God
None of your arguments provided any support for your BoP that an omnipotent God does not exist, my Kalam supports the uncaused cause conception of God. Good luck in your future debates.
Congrats on topping the leaderboard, this debate shows that you deserve to be up there.
I'm currently on holiday but I will be back in about two weeks. Shoot me a pm if you want to debate this topic once I'm back, seems interesting and fairly straight-forward
The trick is to have a pure mind and not think about the actual act 👼
Would appreciate a vote on this one. I'm afraid the timer is quickly approaching zero and it'd be a shame if this ended up being a draw
Meaning that you choose to ignore the word of Jesus, in favour of your interpretation of how his modus operandi would operate on an internet forum?
Ephesians 4:31, NKJV. "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."
Let's get some more kindness into this conversation.
I was originally hoping someone else would accept the other debate and to hold both simultaneously, I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw that he accepted the debate again. This debate includes about 20% more argument from me so it isn't a perfect duplicate, although it is quite similar.
No worries, your debates tend to be enjoyable and you've voted on mine quite a few times. Could've strengthened your R2 $12k argument by immediately citing a study/article indicating that the monetary factor acts as an incentive to have abortions imo, other than that you did really well, loved how you consistently attacked his sources and flipped them against his own reasoning, that's something I'll work on doing myself in future debates.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) has outlined that Divine Law (i.e. the Law that has been revealed by God) which the holy Scripture is a part of, outranks the law of nations (to clarify Acts 5:29) . Hence anyone who accepts Leviticus 20:15-16 would not further require a law of nations to clarify that bestiality is against the law.
It may even be perceived as disrespectful toward God to suggest that his Divine Law requires the replication in our laws of nations to be recognised as valid.
I'm perfectly content with arguing that there is no need for bestiality to be illegal in human laws.
I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church myself, but let's try to keep this comment section a bit more civilised. Your loaded questions implying that Guitar is intentionally supporting paedophilia and part of "an ungodly church" come across quite disrespectfully.
"In all things you yourself must be an example of good behavior. Be sincere and serious in your teaching." (Titus 2:7)
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
This is not a pro-bestiality or con-bestiality debate, it is merely about whether there should be a law prohibiting bestiality, which I believe I have shown to be entirely unnecessary.
Animals are kept in small cages until they are slaughtered, calves are deprived of their mothers as early as possible, we kill male chicks by throwing them in a blender. If their right to move, or even their right to live are not recognised, then surely the lesser right of not having sexual intercourse being legally protected while the others aren't makes little sense.
Further than that, if animals suffered during or because of the intercourse, then it would be illegal anyway. A law against bestiality would be penalising a victimless crime against beings that are not recognised as parts of the moral landscape in contemporary society.
Whether we should be having intercourse with animals is distinct from the question of whether there should be laws in place that prohibit *all* bestiality. I would not have intercourse with animals, but as animal harm is already prohibited and there is no way of enforcing such a law, a bestiality law is unnecessary and futile.
I'd be up for either side of the debate if a further debater is needed
Would appreciate a vote from you guys, cheers.
Would appreciate a vote from you if you've got the time during exam season, you're probably the one that is the most interested in music on this website
Let us hope the audience likes the songs of both of us.
Oops, meant to write "Adele"
I liked your cumulative case for God, your opponent's response, on the other hand, was somewhat disappointing and shows that he may not have read through your arguments but merely glanced over them.
I might vote on this one, seems interesting and I feel like you've got a good shot at winning it, make it interesting ;)
Inductive arguments that show that it's unlikely that the Christian God exists would be sufficient. The debate title could be translated to mean "It is more likely than not that the Christian God does not exist (i.e. is fake)" as both debaters share the BoP (although you could even argue that the BoP is entirely on Con due to the wording of the resolution). There is no need for Pro to prove that God is logically impossible.
Hopefully no vote bombs this time, I'll vote once I've got the time
I would be willing to vote on who I thought presented better anime
I was hoping for wrap recipes. I'm disappointed.
Because you're too skilled obviously. One'd have to be a true Apollo to beat the spectacular Madman in an electronic music battle.
If all rounds are as brief as Sparrow's opening argument I'll vote. However, I feel like a 30 000 character opening argument from the Madman is on its way, have fun debating this topic Sparrow
I noticed it as well but didn't feel like stirring up shit over something I could well be wrong about. However, I reported Raaron's vote well before the debate ended (at least 16 hours, I believe) and there is no comment from a mod saying that the vote was found sufficient although it has the "reports have been handled" tick. I would appreciate you guys checking that vote again.
I'm glad you feel the same way Ragnar.
Which arguments were you hoping for?
Cheers Oromagi, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5 in no time, looking forward to debating you some time soon and I hope you're not beating me too badly in the voting competition ;)
[3]
Michael also points out inconsistencies in RM’s rounds as he argued that morality is relative but at the same time praises Mandela. That’s quite irrelevant to the debate imo and even non-cognitivist ethical theories that reject objective morality nonetheless permit praising people’s behaviours (i.e. a subjectivist might say “I think human flourishing is important, Mandela supported human flourishing, therefore he is moral relative to my standards of morality”, thus it’s quite an unconvincing non-sequitur that is entirely unrelated to the debate. Michael also brought up Hitler (great) and argued that he could be deemed a hero just as much as Mandela and Malcom X (even if this were true, so what?). Michael’s biggest weakness in this debate was to simply state things (i.e. “In fact, this is the biggest hole in your entire argument.” after giving the Hitler example) without supporting this with evidence or arguments or explaining the implications and relevance to the debate of his points.
Michael finally argues that RM did not address the “lack of training” argument but since this argument is not convincing unless one assumes that if vigilante heroes were allowed, exclusively incompetent people would try to be vigilante heroes, this argument fails entirely and RM’s examples of Mandela and Malcom X who were sufficiently competent to gain universal acclaim refute Michael’s arguments.
[2] Michael responds that both of these did not fight criminals but rather governments (which is a good counter-argument if the “allowed” in the debate title refers to “allowed by the government” but rather irrelevant if it is dependent on wider society). Michael further points out that vigilante heroes could “very easily go against the desires of the majority” and that their behaviour would ergo not be condoned. Although I don’t see that as a very relevant counter-point as I believe it would be sufficient for RM to show that some vigilante heroes (i.e. those who do not go against the desires of the majority) should be allowed.
Michael further argues that “without some universal code of conduct, it will just be every man for himself” but only supports this assertion with a call to “look up Thomas Hobbes” or “just look at history for an example”. As Michael neither points to any specific examples from history and did not explain Hobbes’ arguments, we have to believe Hobbes based on his “authority” as a famous philosopher. This argument was weak as it was merely stated but hardly supported by premises and seems counter-intuitive as altruism is a common human feature and we know that at least some people still behave well when they believe no one is watching (e.g. I forgot my phone in the gym recently and it was returned to me instead of being stolen although someone could easily have stolen it).
[1] The “allowed” in the debate resolution was unclear and seemed to be switching between “condoned by the government” to “condoned by society” (i.e. when Michael pointed out that Mandela was fighting against the government, compared to when he later pointed out that some vigilante heroes may go against the desires of the majority). Furthermore, it was unclear what Pro’s BoP actually was. Does he have to show that all vigilante heroes should be allowed (which is what the “training” argument implies)? Is it sufficient to show that at least some (i.e. not none) vigilante heroes should be allowed? I believe it is the latter and since RM showed that Mandela was a vigilante hero that is praised by the people, I believe that he sufficiently established his case and fulfilled his BoP.
Michael presented two arguments for his case: 1) There is no one that can hold the vigilante heroes accountable for their actions as they are anonymous and not easily replaced by the government, and 2) they would likely lack any professional training and could thus end up putting themselves in dangerous situations that they can not get out off.
RM started out with a kritik in round 1 where he focused on the “theoretically” in the resolution and argued that vigilante heroes could “function” theoretically (although he doesn’t support this with any arguments or examples) and claims that Michael conceded this in R1 (which he does not seem to have done overtly, although I can see how he might have done it through implication as there should be no issue with a hero that is publicly known and thus can be held accountable [arg. 1] and highly trained [arg. 2]).
Michael countered RM’s kritik by pointing out that the “theoretically” in the debate title referred to the assumption that people who have sufficient power to act as vigilantes exist. RM pretty much drops his kritik after this round and instead presents examples of real-life vigilantes such as Mandela and Malcom X.
I'd appreciate a vote from you since your DDO record is impressive and you seem interested in this topic
I'd also appreciate a vote from you
You've given me helpful feedback in the past on DDO, I'd really appreciate a vote from you on this one.
I think you may have misclicked in your vote, the conduct point was awarded to neither debater in your vote.
I'd take the debate if it was three rounds instead of five and the character limit was somewhere around 5000. A potential 150 000 characters are simply too time-consuming.
Solid vote
Counter Vote Bomb
No worries. I liked the implicit reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't have any strong opinions on Crowder though.
A voting competition is about to start in the Forum. Sign up for that and wait till tomorrow until you recast your vote to gain bonus points in the event ;)
"This is incorrect as I clearly wrote that this uncaused cause is what we call God: "This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica)." Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists, however it supports Aristotle’s Prime Mover/Aquinas’ uncaused cause.", "It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed."
"There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God." I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God
What do you mean by "no example"? Most of my arguments were centred around Aristotle's Prime Mover, isn't that an example?
You seem interested in this topic, feel free to leave a vote.
None of your arguments provided any support for your BoP that an omnipotent God does not exist, my Kalam supports the uncaused cause conception of God. Good luck in your future debates.
Thank you for the debate, try not to get personal in debates though, it undermines your arguments and likely makes you lose out on conduct points.
Sources - round 4:
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2010-03-tiny-instant-physicists-broken-law.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
I'll let other people have the chance to accept the debate but if you can't find an opponent we can debate the same topic again in a while. Good luck