I debated with that guy. He said my peepee was negative 2 inches and that I was a black curry-loving lesbian. (https://www.debate.org/debates/All-Races-Can-Be-Racist/1/)
And also half of debate.org debates are just companies advertising their products.
You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists.
Whether what you said was true or not doesn't matter. The rules of this debate were: you have to provide sources for claims. You haven't provided any sources for the claim that non-blacks own 90% of all land and wealth in Africa.
Are you mentally and/or physically disabled? Do you know what a source is? Do you know what citing your sources is? You can't just make up claims and then tell your opponent to google them when your bullsh*t is being called out.
Do you know what a source is? A credible link. You broke the rules.
Now you're just resorting to ad hominems. Saying that I'm too obsessed with winning debates is bad conduct. My conduct has been awful? Somehow, me calling you out on your bullsh*t is bad conduct? You're the one who didn't follow the rules of the debate.
Pro has violated the rules of this debate. The rules say that "If you wish to provide statistics or quotes, cite your sources". Con has claimed that 90% of ALL African land & money is owned by non-blacks, and then outright refused to provide a source for that claim. For this reason, vote for Con when voting for conduct.
The government's purpose is to protect and benefit its citizens.
How limited should the government be? Socially, I think the government should be very limited. I'm for a secular government, almost total free speech, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-prostitution, completely for gay marriage, etc.
Economically, I think the government should support low taxes, the free market, and economic freedom.
However, the government should still have duties that no one else wants to do: security, military, enforcing laws, preventing scams and monopolies, etc.
Please. Don't be rude. Why would you want to kill me for having a different belief?
I said SOME of their economic reasoning is sound. Not tariffs, I disagree with that. Illegal immegration helps the economy? I never saw any credible sources that confirmed that claim.
I don't align with Republicans. I said that I align with Republicans a little more than Democrats. You can dislike both things but still prefer one over the other. I think tariffs are bad, LEGAL immigration is good, and banning gay marriages and abortion is bad. Please, I don't want to argue. Just stay friends. If you want to talk message me privately.
Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.
I know that you can't rip my head off, it's a form of expression. I just think it's strange to bombard a stranger with so many questions. Maybe if you want to have a discussion you could message me, because this is unrelated to the debate.
I never said that I like Trump. I said I dislike him. I know that he has no experience and that many of his businesses have failed. That's why I said I would only vote for him if someone pointed a gun to my head. I just think he's a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton.
I'm a libertarian, so I think socialism is harmful and doesn't work.
I align with Republicans a bit more. I think some of their economic reasoning is sound. And they're also against big government and high taxes, and I'm a libertarian. But a lot of what they believe is bullshit, like climate change denialism, religious stuff, anti-gay marriage, etc.
So praying to God is like talking to a therapist in your head? Never thought about that. But still, you must agree that a central concept of Christianity is asking God for forgiveness, hapiness, safety, wealth, etc.
Chill with the questions. It sounds like you want to rip my head off. (:
I don't really like Ben Shapiro. Some of his arguments and beliefs are stupid (He's a theist, he's very anti-Palestian, he's pro-life, etc). I just chose that profile picture because I think it's funny and Ben is kind of a meme.
I dislike both Hillary and Trump. Trump is more authoritarian and I'm a libertarian, Trump has made strange comments towards women, Trump has never held a government/military position, and he ignores nuances on many issues. Hillary has painted her opponents as racist sexist homophobes, lied a lot about many things (such as that she was under sniper fire on a diplomatic visit), said that she would start a war with Russia if elected, and her foundation is just a corruption machine that gives very little to actual charity. I don't like either, but if someone pointed a gun to my head and said "choose" I'd choose Trump.
A lot of people pray to God to get things.
And what is the point of talking to God if he knows what you're going to say? God doesn't respond to you, it's just you talking to him.
I would have to reasearch more about the New American Bible and then I might make a new debate about the existence of the Christian God. If you want to debate topics like "Is God omnipotent?" or "Is God omnibenevolent?", I would be happy to do so! (:
You still haven't explained why the "stone too heavy to lift" argument is flawed. If you think my definition of omnipotence is different from the Christian one, you can read the sources from my Main Argument to see that you're wrong. However, they're all from the KJV bible, and I haven't researched the Bible you're referring to. But from what I know, Catholics also think that God is omnipotent.
Answers to your questions:
1. Yes. Omnipotence only has one definition - unlimited power.
2. It means that an omnipotent God cannot exist, and an omnipotent God is the definition of the Christian God. Like I said in my Main Argument, this isn't about the existence of a higher power but about specifically the Christian God.
Pro is a hypocrite. According to his own logic, since black people have commited crimes in America, he is a criminal and should be deported to Africa. Wonder why he doesn't leave America and move back to Africa, though?
That is true. But that doesn't contradict what I said. "The Christian God" is the God most Christians believe in, and how the Bible describes God. Just because you think he's not omnipotent doesn't change the definition of the Christian God.
If that's what you meant, because I'm not sure why you commented that.
The only problem with your "rebuttal" is, that's not my argument. My argument is that God could not make a stone that he himself would not be able to lift, which means that he is not omnipotent. Also, you can't just ignore the Bible and claim that God can't do things that "go against his nature". It doesn't matter whether you believe God is omnipotent or not. The Bible says that he is omnipotent, and there is only one version of omnipotence - all powerful.
I'm using the King James version because it's one of the most widespread and also in English.
I have defined the four characteristics of God.
Saying "God cannot create a triangle with only two sides" is a legitimate argument. It shows that God is not omnipotent as there is something cannot do. Also, you have never seen an atheist beat their chest and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful". Stop lying.
On another debate you supported the idea that God's existence is likely. Now, you're supporting the opposite. Why?
I'm not demanding an argument from you. But if you signed up for a debate, please be so kind and post your arguments or you will lose.
What things did I say we should apply these criteria to? What are you talking abot?
Well it doesn't matter what DebateArt said, you have to follow the rules of the debate or it's bad conduct.
Yeah, I'd like to have another round. Maybe in a few days, I have other debates to finish.
You haven’t presented anything which you claim to be evidence. That’s how I know that you have not presented evidence.
But go ahead, do it. Present it.
Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.
I debated with that guy. He said my peepee was negative 2 inches and that I was a black curry-loving lesbian. (https://www.debate.org/debates/All-Races-Can-Be-Racist/1/)
And also half of debate.org debates are just companies advertising their products.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The belief in SCIENCE, and NO GODS". Atheism is not science. It's simply the lack of belief in God.
"Can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?"
To determine if the person is able to recognize evidence, you must first provide some evidence. You haven't.
You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists.
Whether what you said was true or not doesn't matter. The rules of this debate were: you have to provide sources for claims. You haven't provided any sources for the claim that non-blacks own 90% of all land and wealth in Africa.
Since God is a metaphysical and supernatural being, and he can't be recorded, this is what would convince me that God exists:
You have to prove to me that:
1. The existence of God is logical and possible
2. The non-existence of God is illogical and impossible.
Then I will believe in God.
I don't require a recording or video. I do, however, require proof.
It's not one state, it's two states. Both groups get a state. Just like Alec said.
Also when are you going to post an argument on our debate about the Christian God?
Are you mentally and/or physically disabled? Do you know what a source is? Do you know what citing your sources is? You can't just make up claims and then tell your opponent to google them when your bullsh*t is being called out.
We shouldn't aply these criteria to any nation-state. And when are you going to post your argument for our debate about the Christian God?
Do you know what a source is? A credible link. You broke the rules.
Now you're just resorting to ad hominems. Saying that I'm too obsessed with winning debates is bad conduct. My conduct has been awful? Somehow, me calling you out on your bullsh*t is bad conduct? You're the one who didn't follow the rules of the debate.
Pro has violated the rules of this debate. The rules say that "If you wish to provide statistics or quotes, cite your sources". Con has claimed that 90% of ALL African land & money is owned by non-blacks, and then outright refused to provide a source for that claim. For this reason, vote for Con when voting for conduct.
"I gave him the actual arrest records."
Arrest records? What arrest records? You don't have a single source in any of your arguments!
Opponent has forfeited all rounds. This is terrible conduct. Please vote Con.
Con(cedes)? haha
You need to explain your stance more. In what sense is atheism good? Is atheism a religion?
I can’t prove the existence of a deity. If I did, I wouldn’t be an atheist.
Also this is completely unrelated to the topic of my debate, so if you want to have this discussion please message me.
The government's purpose is to protect and benefit its citizens.
How limited should the government be? Socially, I think the government should be very limited. I'm for a secular government, almost total free speech, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-prostitution, completely for gay marriage, etc.
Economically, I think the government should support low taxes, the free market, and economic freedom.
However, the government should still have duties that no one else wants to do: security, military, enforcing laws, preventing scams and monopolies, etc.
I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?
What do you mean, in which cases?
Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?
My definition: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!
Yes. Evolution can be compatible with the idea of an intelligent creator.
Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?
Please. Don't be rude. Why would you want to kill me for having a different belief?
I said SOME of their economic reasoning is sound. Not tariffs, I disagree with that. Illegal immegration helps the economy? I never saw any credible sources that confirmed that claim.
I don't align with Republicans. I said that I align with Republicans a little more than Democrats. You can dislike both things but still prefer one over the other. I think tariffs are bad, LEGAL immigration is good, and banning gay marriages and abortion is bad. Please, I don't want to argue. Just stay friends. If you want to talk message me privately.
I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist.
Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.
I know that you can't rip my head off, it's a form of expression. I just think it's strange to bombard a stranger with so many questions. Maybe if you want to have a discussion you could message me, because this is unrelated to the debate.
I never said that I like Trump. I said I dislike him. I know that he has no experience and that many of his businesses have failed. That's why I said I would only vote for him if someone pointed a gun to my head. I just think he's a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton.
I'm a libertarian, so I think socialism is harmful and doesn't work.
I align with Republicans a bit more. I think some of their economic reasoning is sound. And they're also against big government and high taxes, and I'm a libertarian. But a lot of what they believe is bullshit, like climate change denialism, religious stuff, anti-gay marriage, etc.
So praying to God is like talking to a therapist in your head? Never thought about that. But still, you must agree that a central concept of Christianity is asking God for forgiveness, hapiness, safety, wealth, etc.
Chill with the questions. It sounds like you want to rip my head off. (:
I don't really like Ben Shapiro. Some of his arguments and beliefs are stupid (He's a theist, he's very anti-Palestian, he's pro-life, etc). I just chose that profile picture because I think it's funny and Ben is kind of a meme.
I dislike both Hillary and Trump. Trump is more authoritarian and I'm a libertarian, Trump has made strange comments towards women, Trump has never held a government/military position, and he ignores nuances on many issues. Hillary has painted her opponents as racist sexist homophobes, lied a lot about many things (such as that she was under sniper fire on a diplomatic visit), said that she would start a war with Russia if elected, and her foundation is just a corruption machine that gives very little to actual charity. I don't like either, but if someone pointed a gun to my head and said "choose" I'd choose Trump.
A lot of people pray to God to get things.
And what is the point of talking to God if he knows what you're going to say? God doesn't respond to you, it's just you talking to him.
I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative.
Yes, I think I agree with that idea.
I would have to reasearch more about the New American Bible and then I might make a new debate about the existence of the Christian God. If you want to debate topics like "Is God omnipotent?" or "Is God omnibenevolent?", I would be happy to do so! (:
You still haven't explained why the "stone too heavy to lift" argument is flawed. If you think my definition of omnipotence is different from the Christian one, you can read the sources from my Main Argument to see that you're wrong. However, they're all from the KJV bible, and I haven't researched the Bible you're referring to. But from what I know, Catholics also think that God is omnipotent.
Answers to your questions:
1. Yes. Omnipotence only has one definition - unlimited power.
2. It means that an omnipotent God cannot exist, and an omnipotent God is the definition of the Christian God. Like I said in my Main Argument, this isn't about the existence of a higher power but about specifically the Christian God.
Pro is a hypocrite. According to his own logic, since black people have commited crimes in America, he is a criminal and should be deported to Africa. Wonder why he doesn't leave America and move back to Africa, though?
That is true. But that doesn't contradict what I said. "The Christian God" is the God most Christians believe in, and how the Bible describes God. Just because you think he's not omnipotent doesn't change the definition of the Christian God.
If that's what you meant, because I'm not sure why you commented that.
If you want, you can debate me! I can make another debate and use the same argument.
The only problem with your "rebuttal" is, that's not my argument. My argument is that God could not make a stone that he himself would not be able to lift, which means that he is not omnipotent. Also, you can't just ignore the Bible and claim that God can't do things that "go against his nature". It doesn't matter whether you believe God is omnipotent or not. The Bible says that he is omnipotent, and there is only one version of omnipotence - all powerful.
This is already defined. Israel and Palestine is what I said. The current territories of each country, with perhaps some slight changes.
I'm using the King James version because it's one of the most widespread and also in English.
I have defined the four characteristics of God.
Saying "God cannot create a triangle with only two sides" is a legitimate argument. It shows that God is not omnipotent as there is something cannot do. Also, you have never seen an atheist beat their chest and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful". Stop lying.
You bet!
Just because the US is an ally of Israel doesn't mean the US should give its territory to Israel.