The bad grammar, the failure to capitalize letters at the beginning of a sentence, the use of copy-pasted articles rather than making a real argument-all this from an agnostic French-speaking socialist. Boy, does this sound familiar...
While the ESV is a good translation, I think that rule could cause problems. Some of the alleged contradictions are explained by the fact that the Greek doesn't translate into English perfectly, which results in slightly different and sometimes conflicting meanings.
I didn't even think about that. Still, they would be lame arguments, because it would only be a matter of time, and a very short time at that, before he did make an actual insult. Even in that one you posted, there was a genuine personal attack. I edited it out because the rest of it was so bizarrely meaningless.
"that's about ready to supernova on his pinky toe with his yodeling Buddhist monk panzer division at bay singing his favorite garlic onion beer belly deodorant classic yodeling grunge country opera songs as he meows at the moon"
This guy really doesn't think about what he's saying, does he? This is even worse than I remember. It's just total word salad.
The one problem with banning backwardseden for personal attacks is that the majority of his "insults" are completely meaningless, so it might take a bit for him to post one that was actually insulting.
Thanks for the vote. I don't blame you for not reading all of it. After R1, it was mainly just Paul bringing up irrelevant points and me tediously refuting them. It didn't make for interesting reading.
Would my RFD be sufficient if I added some evaluation of Pro's arguments?
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
It goes by the number of arguments rather than the number of rounds, so it will always say there are twice as many arguments as there are rounds. Of course, you probably figured that part out already.
When your opponent rephrases your premise in a way that gives you a higher burden of proof than your premise requires, you need to challenge it and stick to your premise. Had you done so, you would have won this debate.
The guy in the video has it exactly backwards. The members of the group don't succeed because the group has some nefarious influence, but because they pick members who are already leaders and are on the path to success. He is basically trying to draw a conspiracy theory out of the fact that a group that only picks successful members has members succeeding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
Correlation does not equal causation. This argument uses a fallacy in the form of propter hoc ergo post hoc (because after, therefore before). If event A happens after event B, A cannot have caused B. The bonesmen were already successful before they joined skull and bones, so skull and bones can't have caused their success.
You can. It will probably be deleted by the mods otherwise. That's what happened to me when I joined and voted without checking the eligibility requirements.
Is there a way to make banned users auto-forfeit so we don't have to wait several days for the time to run out? I think this would be very useful, especially in cases where there were several rounds left and a large time-per-round.
My opponent just got banned, so I guess I win. If you're reading this, PaulVerlaine, thanks at least for posting debate rounds promptly. I learned a lot about how to debate from this.
"I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.
It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime."
I am aware of that. However, it would be pointless for the DoJ to label organizations according to something that isn't a crime. I have looked on the DoJ website. I have searched for domestic terrorist groups. They do not have a list of domestic terrorist groups. Thus, whites are not a domestic terrorist group according the the DoJ, and you are making this up. In fact, I'm guessing that you know you are making it up and are lying because you are trying to troll us to see what kind of outraged reactions you can get. Am I right?
No, you didn't say it was a crime, but that's not the point. The DoJ doesn't label any group as a domestic terrorist group because domestic terrorism isn't an official crime. In other words, the fact that it isn't a crime proves you made it up.
No, it hasn't been all over the news. In fact, I found quite the opposite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-domestic-terrorism-understanding-law-and-fbi-definitions-terrorist-activity-in-the-united-states/
While domestic terrorism does have an FBI definition, it is not technically a crime. This article specifically mentions that they can't single out white supremacist groups, let alone whites in general. In other words, you are making this up out of whole cloth.
Prove it or retract your claim. Stop trying to avoid the question.
I just looked up "Justice Department labels white americans as domestic terrorists." The only result I got that was remotely similar was some guy in a blog complaining that one branch of the DoJ used the term "domestic terrorists" because that somehow targeted white Americans.
You have the burden of proof. Present your evidence, or admit that you made it up. Stop trying to avoid the question.
I looked it up and found nothing saying that the DoD labeled whites as terrorists.
Also, you are the one presenting the claim. It is absolutely your responsibility to guide us to the source. That is the nature of debate. If and when you give us the source, then take it straight from the DoD itself, not from some conspiracy theorist's website. After all, if they really did what you claim, it should be easy to find.
As someone who knows calculus, I find this question interesting. The answer I learned is that, while 0.999... is not equal to 1, there is no functional difference. 0.999... can get infinitely close to 1, but it will never equal one. However, the difference between 0.999... and 1 will also become infinitely small, so the difference is incalculable. So while they are not technically equal, they may as well be. (Unless you start dealing with quantum theory, but I'm not going there.)
This debate seems like it needs a K to point out that atheism and humanism aren't the same thing, so it's impossible for them to be the bloodiest religion ever.
You're forgetting about cannons. Yes, you can always make some kind of fortress regardless of what weaponry you're facing, but stone castles were rendered almost totally useless by cannons. Also, that article contains a significant inaccuracy. It treats the idea of individual ownership of cannons under the Second Amendment as a joke. In reality, private citizens could not only own cannons but an entire warship loaded with them.
Castles hadn't been a useful form of defense for two hundred years before the Constitution was written. They had been going obselete since the 15th century when the Ottomans used cannons to batter the walls of Constantinople.
The salesman wasn't lying about full auto being a waste of ammo in Vietnam. In fact, shooting in general was a waste of ammo. The Viet Cong was so well hidden that soldiers frequently couldn't see what they were shooting at. That's just the nature of guerrilla warfare. In conventional wars, however, automatic weapons are essential, so he was wrong that soldiers shouldn't have it.
"i do not recognize the authoirty of the us government IF they prevent my state or any state from seceding"
Whether or not you recognize them is irrelevant.
"for the record the constitution does not prohibit secesssion, where does it do that?"
It doesn't directly prohibit secession. However, it makes no provision for it, which has the same effect. There is no constitutional process for secession. In order to secede, you would have to amend it, which is allowed. So if you want to leave, then leave. However, it involves a lot more than simply declaring your secession.
"i refuse to recognize your authority as simple as that"
I personally have no authority. The US government does, and it does not matter in the slightest whether or not you recognize them. They have the authority regardless. It is their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. If you knowingly violate it, any consequences would be on your own head.
To be clear, I think that if you want to secede, you can amend the Constitution and go right ahead. That's your business. It's only when you secede illegally that I have a problem with it.
I am completely aware that I have no authority over you. However, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the USA, does, and it is the duty of the federal government to enforce it. I do not want every city in the nation to burn. However, if you secede without first establishing a constitutional method of doing so, then you run the risk of war, or at least occupation.
If you really want to secede and are willing to amend the Constitution to do so, then, by all means, go right ahead! I don't think you should, but if you want to leave, then go ahead. However, you must first establish a constitutional method of doing so, or any force used by the federal government and the consequences thereof would be on your own head.
The United States constitution that was ratified in 1789 and is the supreme law of the land. The one that you have to follow whether you like it or not and whether you recognize it or not. The one that cannot expire due to age, but can only be amended by a specific process. The one that applies to you regardless of what epithet like "old rag" you throw at it. The one that is your constitution regardless of whether or not you deny it.
It wouldn't be constitutional, so they would have to pass an amendment to do so (which is quite irrelevant to your debate, since you didn't specify the method of secession). That would have one bizarre effect, however. If the right is right, California would implode while America would succeed, since the D's would lose so many electoral votes that the R's would win and guide the country to success. On the other hand, if the left is right, California would succeed while America would implode for the same reason as before.
Either way, millions of people would be losing out. Still, in my opinion, if they want to leave and pass an amendment allowing them to do so, then they can go right ahead. If they start having problems, it would be on their own heads.
The bad grammar, the failure to capitalize letters at the beginning of a sentence, the use of copy-pasted articles rather than making a real argument-all this from an agnostic French-speaking socialist. Boy, does this sound familiar...
9 hours left.
I would say either don't limit it to a particular translation or allow your opponent to use the original languages and related sources as well.
While the ESV is a good translation, I think that rule could cause problems. Some of the alleged contradictions are explained by the fact that the Greek doesn't translate into English perfectly, which results in slightly different and sometimes conflicting meanings.
I didn't even think about that. Still, they would be lame arguments, because it would only be a matter of time, and a very short time at that, before he did make an actual insult. Even in that one you posted, there was a genuine personal attack. I edited it out because the rest of it was so bizarrely meaningless.
"that's about ready to supernova on his pinky toe with his yodeling Buddhist monk panzer division at bay singing his favorite garlic onion beer belly deodorant classic yodeling grunge country opera songs as he meows at the moon"
This guy really doesn't think about what he's saying, does he? This is even worse than I remember. It's just total word salad.
The one problem with banning backwardseden for personal attacks is that the majority of his "insults" are completely meaningless, so it might take a bit for him to post one that was actually insulting.
If this debate is completed without forfeit, we should consider it as an HoF candidate as the first non-English debate.
Thanks for the vote. I don't blame you for not reading all of it. After R1, it was mainly just Paul bringing up irrelevant points and me tediously refuting them. It didn't make for interesting reading.
You're welcome.
Thanks for letting me know.
I don't know what you mean. I saw your comment as I was reading the debate so I could vote on it.
Would my RFD be sufficient if I added some evaluation of Pro's arguments?
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
This debate is the epitome of a gotcha argument.
Because it didn't require one of them to answer.
It goes by the number of arguments rather than the number of rounds, so it will always say there are twice as many arguments as there are rounds. Of course, you probably figured that part out already.
There are only two rounds total.
Ten hours left.
When your opponent rephrases your premise in a way that gives you a higher burden of proof than your premise requires, you need to challenge it and stick to your premise. Had you done so, you would have won this debate.
One day left.
Don't forget.
Bump
The guy in the video has it exactly backwards. The members of the group don't succeed because the group has some nefarious influence, but because they pick members who are already leaders and are on the path to success. He is basically trying to draw a conspiracy theory out of the fact that a group that only picks successful members has members succeeding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
Correlation does not equal causation. This argument uses a fallacy in the form of propter hoc ergo post hoc (because after, therefore before). If event A happens after event B, A cannot have caused B. The bonesmen were already successful before they joined skull and bones, so skull and bones can't have caused their success.
You're welcome. I did the same thing when I joined.
You can. It will probably be deleted by the mods otherwise. That's what happened to me when I joined and voted without checking the eligibility requirements.
It's in the voting eligibility section.
You're not allowed to vote without having completed 2 debates or made 100 forum posts.
Is there a way to make banned users auto-forfeit so we don't have to wait several days for the time to run out? I think this would be very useful, especially in cases where there were several rounds left and a large time-per-round.
My opponent just got banned, so I guess I win. If you're reading this, PaulVerlaine, thanks at least for posting debate rounds promptly. I learned a lot about how to debate from this.
"I'm starting to get the impression that some of you aren't too bright.
It isn't a crime as 2019 because there isn't any legislation that have been passed. A "Label" is a "Title" and not a crime."
I am aware of that. However, it would be pointless for the DoJ to label organizations according to something that isn't a crime. I have looked on the DoJ website. I have searched for domestic terrorist groups. They do not have a list of domestic terrorist groups. Thus, whites are not a domestic terrorist group according the the DoJ, and you are making this up. In fact, I'm guessing that you know you are making it up and are lying because you are trying to troll us to see what kind of outraged reactions you can get. Am I right?
No, you didn't say it was a crime, but that's not the point. The DoJ doesn't label any group as a domestic terrorist group because domestic terrorism isn't an official crime. In other words, the fact that it isn't a crime proves you made it up.
No, it hasn't been all over the news. In fact, I found quite the opposite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-domestic-terrorism-understanding-law-and-fbi-definitions-terrorist-activity-in-the-united-states/
While domestic terrorism does have an FBI definition, it is not technically a crime. This article specifically mentions that they can't single out white supremacist groups, let alone whites in general. In other words, you are making this up out of whole cloth.
Prove it or retract your claim. Stop trying to avoid the question.
I just looked up "Justice Department labels white americans as domestic terrorists." The only result I got that was remotely similar was some guy in a blog complaining that one branch of the DoJ used the term "domestic terrorists" because that somehow targeted white Americans.
You have the burden of proof. Present your evidence, or admit that you made it up. Stop trying to avoid the question.
You are correct; you did say the DoJ and not the DoD. Now, present your evidence that this actually happened.
I looked it up and found nothing saying that the DoD labeled whites as terrorists.
Also, you are the one presenting the claim. It is absolutely your responsibility to guide us to the source. That is the nature of debate. If and when you give us the source, then take it straight from the DoD itself, not from some conspiracy theorist's website. After all, if they really did what you claim, it should be easy to find.
We don't seem to agree on much, but we do agree on this.
As someone who knows calculus, I find this question interesting. The answer I learned is that, while 0.999... is not equal to 1, there is no functional difference. 0.999... can get infinitely close to 1, but it will never equal one. However, the difference between 0.999... and 1 will also become infinitely small, so the difference is incalculable. So while they are not technically equal, they may as well be. (Unless you start dealing with quantum theory, but I'm not going there.)
This debate seems like it needs a K to point out that atheism and humanism aren't the same thing, so it's impossible for them to be the bloodiest religion ever.
You're welcome.
You're forgetting about cannons. Yes, you can always make some kind of fortress regardless of what weaponry you're facing, but stone castles were rendered almost totally useless by cannons. Also, that article contains a significant inaccuracy. It treats the idea of individual ownership of cannons under the Second Amendment as a joke. In reality, private citizens could not only own cannons but an entire warship loaded with them.
Castles hadn't been a useful form of defense for two hundred years before the Constitution was written. They had been going obselete since the 15th century when the Ottomans used cannons to batter the walls of Constantinople.
The salesman wasn't lying about full auto being a waste of ammo in Vietnam. In fact, shooting in general was a waste of ammo. The Viet Cong was so well hidden that soldiers frequently couldn't see what they were shooting at. That's just the nature of guerrilla warfare. In conventional wars, however, automatic weapons are essential, so he was wrong that soldiers shouldn't have it.
Makes sense.
How do you have the time to have 10 debates going on at the same time?
"i do not recognize the authoirty of the us government IF they prevent my state or any state from seceding"
Whether or not you recognize them is irrelevant.
"for the record the constitution does not prohibit secesssion, where does it do that?"
It doesn't directly prohibit secession. However, it makes no provision for it, which has the same effect. There is no constitutional process for secession. In order to secede, you would have to amend it, which is allowed. So if you want to leave, then leave. However, it involves a lot more than simply declaring your secession.
"i refuse to recognize your authority as simple as that"
I personally have no authority. The US government does, and it does not matter in the slightest whether or not you recognize them. They have the authority regardless. It is their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. If you knowingly violate it, any consequences would be on your own head.
To be clear, I think that if you want to secede, you can amend the Constitution and go right ahead. That's your business. It's only when you secede illegally that I have a problem with it.
I am completely aware that I have no authority over you. However, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the USA, does, and it is the duty of the federal government to enforce it. I do not want every city in the nation to burn. However, if you secede without first establishing a constitutional method of doing so, then you run the risk of war, or at least occupation.
If you really want to secede and are willing to amend the Constitution to do so, then, by all means, go right ahead! I don't think you should, but if you want to leave, then go ahead. However, you must first establish a constitutional method of doing so, or any force used by the federal government and the consequences thereof would be on your own head.
The United States constitution that was ratified in 1789 and is the supreme law of the land. The one that you have to follow whether you like it or not and whether you recognize it or not. The one that cannot expire due to age, but can only be amended by a specific process. The one that applies to you regardless of what epithet like "old rag" you throw at it. The one that is your constitution regardless of whether or not you deny it.
It wouldn't be constitutional, so they would have to pass an amendment to do so (which is quite irrelevant to your debate, since you didn't specify the method of secession). That would have one bizarre effect, however. If the right is right, California would implode while America would succeed, since the D's would lose so many electoral votes that the R's would win and guide the country to success. On the other hand, if the left is right, California would succeed while America would implode for the same reason as before.
Either way, millions of people would be losing out. Still, in my opinion, if they want to leave and pass an amendment allowing them to do so, then they can go right ahead. If they start having problems, it would be on their own heads.
I found out when I tried to change the limit on my other debate. Too late now.