And how is war and slavery supported by "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
You are saying that "violently keeping the peace or slavery " is not sinning, so effectively you are justifying some behaviour to avoid the clear contradictions in the Bible?
I find the true value of a debate, is to read the votes. How was the message received? I did not agree with you at all, yet I still voted for you, because for me... the BOP is most important. Other voters will be more influenced by their own opinions, or see what I saw in a very different way. That is life. I have talked with people who voted against me, and thank them for the time they take to read my material, and give feedback. That is such a precious thing.
Enjoy the relationships, learn from the comments, and grow with it.
I looked into this a little more. It appears as if the article was posted on the same day as the debate. So a claim that it was written for the debate first and then posted could make sense. Regardless I would still vote against for conduct, because it was not a debate, it was not an attempt to debate. It was the pasting of an article. There were no counterarguments.
From the voting policy.
Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Whilst I can change the words to take out the reference to plagiarism, my vote would still stay as such.
Pro claims the article that was copied and pasted was their own work. Here was my response:
"You copied an article, without attribution. You did not engage in a debate, you just copied and pasted. So whilst you claim you are the author, you did not say so in the debate. You did not debate, you just copied and pasted, which you would also lose for conduct. Feel free to report the vot4, and let the mods decide."
You said " when we are specifically told that what is written is not literal". Who tells you and who has the authority to tell you. Seems very circular to me.
Hey-yo was very very funny indeed. I love this type of debate. It also shows how easy it is to conceive a conspiracy if you try to connect a few dots that have no business being connected.
Thank you Savant for the vote, and thank you Hey-yo for the humour and creativity setting this debate.
I think this could be a fun debate if it was about an adjective. Something a little subjective. like ethical, moral, honourable, virtuous, conscientious etc.
As Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god, and Jewish people do not believe the same, that is a contradiction, so I agree with Nyxefid and the topic is a truism, and not debatable.
Please let me know what was wrong with my vote, You defined your argument as needing proof in the two parts. You only addressed one part. That does not meet the BoP. The vote has to be clear, not long.
My vote shows you did not address the concept of lawfulness as required by your definition of murder. Where did I make a mistake?
I really hope you are wrong, yet I would not put a penny of a bet on you being wrong. It is very sad. My efforts are falling on the deaf and blind. That individual will not change me as a person. I hope they change.
1. I do not know why you are hating on me, when I did nothing wrong. However it is what it is.
2. I agree with what you said in the comment. "Though, LGB campaign in your society will turn it into that, one day it will be compulsory for each of you to experience it to have knowledge of it or accept it."
I am not happy about how things are progressing, and the psychological implications to children. How can we have such perversion confuse the mind of a child? Why would we sexualize elements of life as normalizing behaviour, and corrupting children?
I told you I respected your views. I told you that I thought you were a better person than your comments. And you have shown it. I think a great debate topic for you is
"Islam does not endorse the victimization of children"
I do hope your ability to read improves for this debate. Sir Lancelot is very accomplished. I would encourage you to be thoughtful, courteous, and respectful. I wish you the best of luck.
I agree with you and do not see how this debate can occur where one must argue that the normality of the Islamic culture is not normal from a societal perspective, without insulting the religious philosophies.
I did say ypu acted poorly im yhe comment section. I also said i dont think that reglects who ypy truly are.
If the response window was 3 days, i would have agreed. It was 2 weeks. That is not me taking advantage. That is ypu falling on the knife of ypur own procrastination.
Winning is not mt concern. See where votes are against me and I thank the judges for their thought and time.
You erred in not circling back and addressing my issue. I do know how debates are done and I have chosen unwinnable sides
Whilst I said I would not want to debate you again, I will do it. Follow the rules and be clear. It is up to you. I hope whatever life anger ypu are suffering from which is feeding your vitriol gets resolved soon.
I stated, at the end of Round 4, which you admit to not having seen:
"I find it very difficult to believe that a philosophical system that micromanages ones life is :the best". At the core, certain religions and philosophical positions are designed to be a type of indentured servitude, where the work in your is for the benefit of a deity or prophet, be-it God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, Shiva, Vishnu etc.
I have shown a system that does not require servitude. Pro's list of Islamic features is not an argument about why it is the best. "
Sometimes you can win a debate on a single punch, and notwithstanding the forfeit rule, I landed the punch. You never even responded to it, therefore you conceded that point, and the judge felt it was a winning statement.
Sir. You keep inferring that I was crying, and I was not. You did not look at the merits of the words I spoke. You violated your own rule and were upset about that. I was nothing but polite, and gracious and in spite of that, you attack. If I prayed, I would pray for you.
"O you who have believed, fulfil [your] obligations." (Quran 5:1)
"And fulfil every commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned." (Quran 17:34)
"O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." (Quran 61:2-3)
"And keep the covenant. Indeed, the covenant is ever [that about which one will be] questioned." (Quran 17:34)
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both." (Quran 4:135)
You have accused me, and one of the best debaters and judges on this site of not reading the entire debate. I encourage you to re-read my debate responses.
I never petitioned for votes. I presented an argument in a manner that you did not like. I did not insult your religion and was nothing but respectful. I am genuinely confused why you do not look at the merits of the words. Instead, you attack the person, being myself and Savant. I ask you to look into your soul and ask yourself if the anger and negativity you are bestowing on others are truly reflective of who you are as a person. I think you are a better person than that. You showed great compassion for Islam, and as I said, I respect that. Reading your RFD notes, it is clear that you wanted a different debate than was agreed on. I hope you get that debate in future.
I do not consent to a reset. Nor will I debate you about this topic again. Your behaviour is not commensurate with someone I would like to interact with.
Lance, I have had a family issue pop up. Can you agree for us to void this first round? I will have a response for our COVID one, as it is short and sweet. I appreciate the accommodation.
My Friend you state: "My argument as con (sic) would have been that it's easier to hide evidence of rape if you allowed women to be coerced into abortions by rapists."
That's a pretty loaded statement. What does allowing coercion for abortion mean? Does coercion to abortion change the legal defence of a rapist? Perhaps.... if the coercion is retroactively applied and induced the victim to not tell? Does the abortion itself render the rape conduct defendable?
I am not sure I understand your position. Start a debate and hash it out?
The BOP being "probably" is going to make this interesting for sure.
Easiest debate to vote on ever.
You will need to ask for judges that exercise full tabula rasa voting. And you may still lose. Can you handle a loss?
Kinda funny that the method to debate how shitty the people on the site are, is by going on the site and join the shitty people
I would encourage sources from both sides. Interesting start.
You should have mentioned me in this as I asked you to create this debate for me.
If you changed the debate to be Owning a Slave is Consitant with Christian Teachings, I would take that.
And how is war and slavery supported by "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).
You are saying that "violently keeping the peace or slavery " is not sinning, so effectively you are justifying some behaviour to avoid the clear contradictions in the Bible?
what does "properly practice" mean?
I find the true value of a debate, is to read the votes. How was the message received? I did not agree with you at all, yet I still voted for you, because for me... the BOP is most important. Other voters will be more influenced by their own opinions, or see what I saw in a very different way. That is life. I have talked with people who voted against me, and thank them for the time they take to read my material, and give feedback. That is such a precious thing.
Enjoy the relationships, learn from the comments, and grow with it.
How can metaphorical be literal and specific?
Would ha into do physical work be considered physical punishment. I had to clean a lot of boards and write a lot of li ea as a kid
I will. I am making my way through it. BTW thanks for the vote, and you brought up a fair point with me saying cowardly. Point taken.
I looked into this a little more. It appears as if the article was posted on the same day as the debate. So a claim that it was written for the debate first and then posted could make sense. Regardless I would still vote against for conduct, because it was not a debate, it was not an attempt to debate. It was the pasting of an article. There were no counterarguments.
From the voting policy.
Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Whilst I can change the words to take out the reference to plagiarism, my vote would still stay as such.
Pro claims the article that was copied and pasted was their own work. Here was my response:
"You copied an article, without attribution. You did not engage in a debate, you just copied and pasted. So whilst you claim you are the author, you did not say so in the debate. You did not debate, you just copied and pasted, which you would also lose for conduct. Feel free to report the vot4, and let the mods decide."
Care to vote? It is a quick read.
You said " when we are specifically told that what is written is not literal". Who tells you and who has the authority to tell you. Seems very circular to me.
Yep. I will. I have already gone halfway through it.
Cheers
Thank you SL. I am ham.ed up. However I will make the time for this. Count me in. It is a good break
I am inclined to leave it conceptually broad, Western governments at a federal level.
Hey-yo was very very funny indeed. I love this type of debate. It also shows how easy it is to conceive a conspiracy if you try to connect a few dots that have no business being connected.
Thank you Savant for the vote, and thank you Hey-yo for the humour and creativity setting this debate.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic. I think a clear definition reduces Kritiks?
I think this could be a fun debate if it was about an adjective. Something a little subjective. like ethical, moral, honourable, virtuous, conscientious etc.
As Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god, and Jewish people do not believe the same, that is a contradiction, so I agree with Nyxefid and the topic is a truism, and not debatable.
all good thank you.
I am too unskilled for this based on your ratings I would.like to give it a go
I have a great one ready!!!! This should be fun. Good luck,
Please let me know what was wrong with my vote, You defined your argument as needing proof in the two parts. You only addressed one part. That does not meet the BoP. The vote has to be clear, not long.
My vote shows you did not address the concept of lawfulness as required by your definition of murder. Where did I make a mistake?
I think my vote explanation is very clear. Where did I err?
I really hope you are wrong, yet I would not put a penny of a bet on you being wrong. It is very sad. My efforts are falling on the deaf and blind. That individual will not change me as a person. I hope they change.
2 things.
1. I do not know why you are hating on me, when I did nothing wrong. However it is what it is.
2. I agree with what you said in the comment. "Though, LGB campaign in your society will turn it into that, one day it will be compulsory for each of you to experience it to have knowledge of it or accept it."
I am not happy about how things are progressing, and the psychological implications to children. How can we have such perversion confuse the mind of a child? Why would we sexualize elements of life as normalizing behaviour, and corrupting children?
I told you I respected your views. I told you that I thought you were a better person than your comments. And you have shown it. I think a great debate topic for you is
"Islam does not endorse the victimization of children"
I wish you the best.
I do hope your ability to read improves for this debate. Sir Lancelot is very accomplished. I would encourage you to be thoughtful, courteous, and respectful. I wish you the best of luck.
I agree with you and do not see how this debate can occur where one must argue that the normality of the Islamic culture is not normal from a societal perspective, without insulting the religious philosophies.
I did say ypu acted poorly im yhe comment section. I also said i dont think that reglects who ypy truly are.
If the response window was 3 days, i would have agreed. It was 2 weeks. That is not me taking advantage. That is ypu falling on the knife of ypur own procrastination.
Winning is not mt concern. See where votes are against me and I thank the judges for their thought and time.
You erred in not circling back and addressing my issue. I do know how debates are done and I have chosen unwinnable sides
Whilst I said I would not want to debate you again, I will do it. Follow the rules and be clear. It is up to you. I hope whatever life anger ypu are suffering from which is feeding your vitriol gets resolved soon.
Savant made clear his RFD.
I stated, at the end of Round 4, which you admit to not having seen:
"I find it very difficult to believe that a philosophical system that micromanages ones life is :the best". At the core, certain religions and philosophical positions are designed to be a type of indentured servitude, where the work in your is for the benefit of a deity or prophet, be-it God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, Shiva, Vishnu etc.
I have shown a system that does not require servitude. Pro's list of Islamic features is not an argument about why it is the best. "
Sometimes you can win a debate on a single punch, and notwithstanding the forfeit rule, I landed the punch. You never even responded to it, therefore you conceded that point, and the judge felt it was a winning statement.
Yep. I will get to it.
Sir. You keep inferring that I was crying, and I was not. You did not look at the merits of the words I spoke. You violated your own rule and were upset about that. I was nothing but polite, and gracious and in spite of that, you attack. If I prayed, I would pray for you.
"O you who have believed, fulfil [your] obligations." (Quran 5:1)
"And fulfil every commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned." (Quran 17:34)
"O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." (Quran 61:2-3)
"And keep the covenant. Indeed, the covenant is ever [that about which one will be] questioned." (Quran 17:34)
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both." (Quran 4:135)
You have accused me, and one of the best debaters and judges on this site of not reading the entire debate. I encourage you to re-read my debate responses.
I never petitioned for votes. I presented an argument in a manner that you did not like. I did not insult your religion and was nothing but respectful. I am genuinely confused why you do not look at the merits of the words. Instead, you attack the person, being myself and Savant. I ask you to look into your soul and ask yourself if the anger and negativity you are bestowing on others are truly reflective of who you are as a person. I think you are a better person than that. You showed great compassion for Islam, and as I said, I respect that. Reading your RFD notes, it is clear that you wanted a different debate than was agreed on. I hope you get that debate in future.
I do not consent to a reset. Nor will I debate you about this topic again. Your behaviour is not commensurate with someone I would like to interact with.
In fairness it is an impossible resolution. Can yiu reframe it and I may take a stab. It is an important discussion to have.
I understand your request. However you did set the rules.
4 No forfeit (if then automatic defeat)
You set the rules, and want to change them after they are affected.
I am going to let the community contribute. I have been given grace and have granted same. However in advance and not when I break my own rule.
Surah Al-Isra (17:34):
"And fulfill every commitment."
Lance, I have had a family issue pop up. Can you agree for us to void this first round? I will have a response for our COVID one, as it is short and sweet. I appreciate the accommodation.
My Friend you state: "My argument as con (sic) would have been that it's easier to hide evidence of rape if you allowed women to be coerced into abortions by rapists."
That's a pretty loaded statement. What does allowing coercion for abortion mean? Does coercion to abortion change the legal defence of a rapist? Perhaps.... if the coercion is retroactively applied and induced the victim to not tell? Does the abortion itself render the rape conduct defendable?
I am not sure I understand your position. Start a debate and hash it out?
Thanks All!
Anyone interested in a vote? One day left. thanks
If I go e you the phone number of so.eonr who believes they talked to God, does God exist?
I dont think that was the intent. Legally correct? owing Ugandan Law? Procedurally correct? right... is contextual not absolute.
Can I understand what correct is? What context is it defined as?
I am going to vote on this. Need some time. Remind me if I start running out of time.