The KJV was published for political reasons by King James, he had specific translation rules that influenced the text, the translators were not familiar with Koine Greek and had less Koine Greek manuscripts than modern translators have. I find the ESV and NASB to be the most accurate/literal translations of the Bible
"murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person"-Cambridge
"To kill someone in self-defense is to commit murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". " -You
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime, so it's not murder
I got lagged out of the debate, made me think there was more time than there really was left, said there was 1 hour and 23 mins left when the debate was forfeited
I really don't know, that debate was always on my mind but I didn't execute it after heavy consideration of how to set it up, guess I was overwhelmed with that and dealing with life at the same time, the entirety of a tournament, especially since we had no option in selecting our topics, seemed daunting. Think I can manage this as something fun
I'm aware, I'm using, "As con you can negate" as a perspective flip, saying if you were con you'd be able to do the same. Leaving this to voters is fair, still haven't decided how I'm going to argue this, want to adhere to your original intent but I disagree with your resolution's premise, I can argue both potentially.
"The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane.""
As Con you can negate the resolution itself. You are making the claim that art is either sacred or profane, I can contend/negate that by saying art is neither sacred nor profane.
The resolution is "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane", I was intending to argue that this dichotomy was false, to negate the resolution as an untrue statement. The desc. says, "For purposes of this debate, it is one or the other; we cannot argue that it is both." I was intending to argue against this claim, that it is neither. The either/or is unclear since it leaves an opening to question the either/or itself.
I misunderstood the premise of the debate, thought I'd be arguing that art is neither sacared nor profane, not that it is profane. Willing to debate within either parameters but I do feel bamboobzled
"These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however." A mutation is any change in the genetic code, even loss of genetic code
"Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring...This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition." This loss of genetic information from the parents to their offspring is a mutation. A mutation is just a genetic change.
Holy fuck I forgot about this completely until last night but then I passed out and woke up 2 hours after the forfeit. We can restart this and repost our R1 arguments if you'd like
We can communicate observations but there's a multitude of disagreements about these observations, what's real to one person may not be real to another person
Ping
The KJV was published for political reasons by King James, he had specific translation rules that influenced the text, the translators were not familiar with Koine Greek and had less Koine Greek manuscripts than modern translators have. I find the ESV and NASB to be the most accurate/literal translations of the Bible
Wow I went to this debate in debating period then it turned to voting period right after selidoria's brief rebuttal
Bad ops
It's a big back and forth, wonder if you came to the same conclusion I did
Wonder where this vote is going to land
"murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person"-Cambridge
"To kill someone in self-defense is to commit murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". " -You
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime, so it's not murder
Think it's you since you're here now
Had it all written down too just needed to add sources, we can redo the debate
I got lagged out of the debate, made me think there was more time than there really was left, said there was 1 hour and 23 mins left when the debate was forfeited
Got caught up in Mafia too lmao
I really don't know, that debate was always on my mind but I didn't execute it after heavy consideration of how to set it up, guess I was overwhelmed with that and dealing with life at the same time, the entirety of a tournament, especially since we had no option in selecting our topics, seemed daunting. Think I can manage this as something fun
Challenge accepted
If you watched Fox News at this time Obama was the worst president ever
Satisfactory in what sense
Looks like a legendary debate
I'm aware, I'm using, "As con you can negate" as a perspective flip, saying if you were con you'd be able to do the same. Leaving this to voters is fair, still haven't decided how I'm going to argue this, want to adhere to your original intent but I disagree with your resolution's premise, I can argue both potentially.
"The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane.""
As Con you can negate the resolution itself. You are making the claim that art is either sacred or profane, I can contend/negate that by saying art is neither sacred nor profane.
Thank you Supa, it's good to be back!
The resolution is "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane", I was intending to argue that this dichotomy was false, to negate the resolution as an untrue statement. The desc. says, "For purposes of this debate, it is one or the other; we cannot argue that it is both." I was intending to argue against this claim, that it is neither. The either/or is unclear since it leaves an opening to question the either/or itself.
I misunderstood the premise of the debate, thought I'd be arguing that art is neither sacared nor profane, not that it is profane. Willing to debate within either parameters but I do feel bamboobzled
It should be! Can't wait for your response
*person draws single blue line* "yes" "*Y E S*"
Thank you for creating this, sounds really interesting! Looking forward to the art debate
What do you mean by sane here? Rational?
"These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however." A mutation is any change in the genetic code, even loss of genetic code
"Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring...This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition." This loss of genetic information from the parents to their offspring is a mutation. A mutation is just a genetic change.
It won't let me edit the title :(
I can to do a Perception is Reality 3 debate if you want
You messaged the second I got on, sweet!
Holy fuck I forgot about this completely until last night but then I passed out and woke up 2 hours after the forfeit. We can restart this and repost our R1 arguments if you'd like
I just got back and found an argument on the nature of reality, which is supposedly objective
We can communicate observations but there's a multitude of disagreements about these observations, what's real to one person may not be real to another person
Why will I lose
Guess I can debate you on this, since I agree with you on National Healthcare
I don't think a broken condom should merit an abortion, that should be an accepted risk beforehand, especially not after sentience
I thought abortion was already legalized in the US with Roe V. Wade, up to which trimester are we talking about?
Welcome to DART!
Final argument:
"Jew"
10/10
Why the fuck are you so hostile to Titanium Type1
All this for a shitty Marxism debate
Sweet! Would love to read some
Thanks for the in depth analyses RM. I do dabble in the poetic, happy you caught on to that, but this is my first actual rap battle
It's over, you can vote now
Guess I'm getting conduct points taken away
Close, she's Star from Star Vs. The Forces of Evil
Thank yee