>>Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Well yeah given it would be equal on both side. The murderer most likely took more.
>>Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Can be related. Not are.
>>Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
I say if people are traumatized and are seeking help from a therapist. That is enough for me. Traumatized can be seen with them crying and a therapist can give evidence of their mentality. Yeah sure we don't understand the mind that much but with what we do understand it is enough to say X was mentally impacted by an event or not.
>>Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
No. I am saying if we focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation it doesn't actually reduce crime if I am correct on the data so it is best to put little effort in determining a just punishment instead of rehabilitation which can stop a cycle of crime which can be passed onto future generations.
Sorry. I am not going to finish it by today. I have 6 days so I think it is best to use. Come back to my argument and add in what I think is required for my point to be convincing.
It is a cap. Not really intended to be filled. If that does happen then I had the character limit to allow for either mine or my opponent's argument to be filled.
I don't want to personally have to remove arguments because I didn't meet the character limit. With this character limit it reduces the chance and since it is the highest it can go it is the most I am capable of doing. Going back to what I said earlier, I don't want to personally have to remove arguments I doubt my opponent would like too either.
>>Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
So you want to defend the old testament as well?
>> I refuse to use the KJV.
I mainly use it because it is easier for me to find people who use it.
>>New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE)
Okay? I'll wait for Speedrace. If he wants you to take it then I'll make the changes.
>>" I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
I went through what I thought was what happened. That wasn't being rude. That was me laying out what I thought happened.
>>but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
Intelligence is not tied to reading. A gardener can be the best gardener without reading a single book. I simply said he might have not read it given how he didn't really answer what I said instead gave a question.
>>I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family.
When and what you do mean by this? Can you state this in a different way or bring in a quote to so I might understand what you are saying.
>>That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Yes it does.
>>Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Didn't think anything was in the first place.
>>Punishment is a deterrent, which is good.
I don't think this is true. If that is the case we would see for every punished criminal an impact on future crime. The stats I don't think layout punishment being an effective way at deterring crimes. I guess if you had crime stats and showed how a lot of people were in jail then it has been steadily I'll believe it but I doubt that is the case.
>>I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
Can't really think of too many arguments.
I could also think of your explanations given here and some other possible ones which I don't think would be eventful.
>>Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer.
Yes and I don't think it will ever be given that only 1 life will be impacted by the murderer whereas the person dead would have more than likely 1 more person that cared about them.
>>An eye for an eye, correct?
Well yes but it is definitely more complex than that.
What if it was manslaughter?
The only way to meet a just punishment if we value an equal answer is if that person was also manslaughtered.
This value is me borrowing from Alec's. I don't personally take the side that we should value punishment over rehabilitation. I take the opposite which is why I don't really care about punishment but with what Alec said I found it didn't really make sense.
Say what I said in a way that you like. I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question.
The amount of harm lets say a murderer committed will not be met given that more than 1 life would be impacted. If lets say a dad was murdered. His wife/girlfriend/lover, parents that are still alive, children, other family and friends would be impacted.
Saying you would commit X punishment on the murderer doesn't actually change that. So the argument that this should occur because it is comparable to what the murderer did is false. Given the murderer impacted multiple lives and the punishment you are issuing will only impact one life.
I guess you can argue it is just but don't know how you would go about it. Care to try?
Not the Christian perspective just a definition like Omnipotence is God can do anything. Pro will be arguing how this is not illogical whereas Con will be arguing it is illogical.
If the debate is centered around if omnipotence disproves God then you should give a neutral view of the definition. Something that both parties can agree on.
Like God can do anything.
From that you can allow the contender to start to list out problems then from that you can lay out how they are not problems. Doing it this would allow the definition to be known so that it isn't really a problem when arguing.
You then decide to confirm that I did state one thing yet you did another.
What you should do when moving forward in these debates is clearly lay out definitions so that you are not arguing definitions instead arguing with the definitions in mind.
I don't think you are left wing enough. Given that I think the best side is the left that comes with what I personally believe.
Try to actually or do a more effective job at creating a foundation. Have it then make other things confirms the foundation. If you can't make it confirm the foundation your foundation is flawed. I haven't personally done this because I am lazy but I am sure it would work for people who wanted to truly know if there foundation is good. This is under the assumption foundations are good which I think they are.
What I try to do when arguing is with every single claim I made is support it with evidence an explanation. I can't believe English was helpful but it was. Without it my formulation would be awful.
Example:
Chrome is better than Opera.
The measurement I am using is booting times.
X videos states upon multiple different states that Chrome shows to be the most consistent with, without plugins and when trying to open previously close windows.
With this information I can conclude that Chrome's boot times are better. This is helpful because it reduces the time taken to get on the platform which means I am quicker to access websites.
Something like that should be fine. If you even attempt what I said here I am sure you would be okay. If you need clarification just ask or tell me how I am wrong or something.
Can't prove your point. Ask the person you are supposed to be proving your claim to provide evidence ("Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history."). Ramshutu logic and also appeal to the crowd while you are at it ("Anyone else interested").
I would say the problem is more with the positions you hold while also how you got there used in a debate. Those arguments you used against me in the death penalty were really bad. I think you should either decide to change your positions or improve your arguments for your existing positions. What I would say pick better positions then improve your arguments but I ain't you.
This debate is I think going to revolve around the definition of omnipotence since GuitarSlinger didn't bother to give one. With this the instigator can use his own definition and the contender can use his own. Not eventful but if this wasn't a problem I still think it would demonstrate what was already the case before. People who already with a side will still agree with that side given the really unlikely scenario that either of them will provide a new or tailored argument to a reader.
It is even better to avoid confusion or debate about things that are specific to the debate itself instead of arguing about assumptions or lack thereof in the debate.
"I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point"
Now I know you have lost your mind. Do I need to provide a single occurrence or do you know how laughable this claims is?
I hope in the next comment you are not as delusional here.
What a weird way of stating my position. It is almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
What I wanted was for you to make sure your question as in who had what burden was fulfilled. This debate was about if God exists or not. For the most part it was fulfilled but you decided to state a question you could've asked before accepting. There is no real reason why you didn't do it instead of incompetence (I can't really think of a different answer. Your response because it is debating is lackluster because why didn't you talk about the assumptions of this debate). This debate is an easy win. Have you seen his past debates? You could've just stayed on topic yet you wanted to also argue about the burden. This was entirely useless and preventable. I hope you understand that but doubt it.
The resolution implied was "Life is created by God". You instead chose to spend some characters on changing or setting the assumptions. Instead of simply asking who is doing what outside the debate you instead challenged it in the debate.
There was topic but you chose to challenge the assumptions.
I said demand because if he didn't accept he would have to argue against an assumption while also the resolution.
This conversation is over. I have clearly shown just how incapable you are. You can keep talking but I ain't responding to this topic given your "arguments".
You said something that if you read what I was saying you would've realized it was wrong. Either you memory is bad, you like to selectively read and fill in things you like or can't read. I'll go with the second option. I only copied this given you didn't defend the blatant straw-man and is more likely intentional than unintentional.
>>We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay).
How do we label things? One way is by seeing an action and labeling it as such. If someone is moving really fast they are running. Can't believe you don't even understand this. If we don't label someone being gay we wouldn't know what the person is until they have met a criteria like honestly state what they are or perceive an action.
>> Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate.
Inadequate? Your entire position is inadequate and you defend your laughable misrepresentation with muh "Not a straw man". You call my position inadequate yet you can't give a better way of measuring it. You conceded that your position is less than inadqueate. Glad I know we are on the same page.
>>My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.
You made this up right now. Where was this claim earlier mister I am going to flip flop on my positions?
You said: I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
Yet here you said it is mostly Nurture.
You've shown that you like changing your mind even when you have seen evidence to show your change in my. Like committing intentional straw-men, don't even understand ways that we assign labels and conceded your position is less than inadequate.
Good luck
Are you going to take up the debate?
>>Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Well yeah given it would be equal on both side. The murderer most likely took more.
>>Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Can be related. Not are.
>>Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
I say if people are traumatized and are seeking help from a therapist. That is enough for me. Traumatized can be seen with them crying and a therapist can give evidence of their mentality. Yeah sure we don't understand the mind that much but with what we do understand it is enough to say X was mentally impacted by an event or not.
>>Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
No. I am saying if we focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation it doesn't actually reduce crime if I am correct on the data so it is best to put little effort in determining a just punishment instead of rehabilitation which can stop a cycle of crime which can be passed onto future generations.
>>Defending Christianity and defending the OT (Bible) are two different things
I used what Speedrace used. Basically Christianity excluding the Old Testament.
Next time I'll include it.
Sorry. I am not going to finish it by today. I have 6 days so I think it is best to use. Come back to my argument and add in what I think is required for my point to be convincing.
Do you still want to debate this like after I have completed this debate with the modifications?
I'll post my argument tomorrow.
>>Why 30,000 characters?
It is a cap. Not really intended to be filled. If that does happen then I had the character limit to allow for either mine or my opponent's argument to be filled.
I don't want to personally have to remove arguments because I didn't meet the character limit. With this character limit it reduces the chance and since it is the highest it can go it is the most I am capable of doing. Going back to what I said earlier, I don't want to personally have to remove arguments I doubt my opponent would like too either.
Do you want to accept or do you want GuitarSlinger to take your place?
>>Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
So you want to defend the old testament as well?
>> I refuse to use the KJV.
I mainly use it because it is easier for me to find people who use it.
>>New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE)
Okay? I'll wait for Speedrace. If he wants you to take it then I'll make the changes.
If you want too. Sorry about not accepting before.
>>" I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
I went through what I thought was what happened. That wasn't being rude. That was me laying out what I thought happened.
>>but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
Intelligence is not tied to reading. A gardener can be the best gardener without reading a single book. I simply said he might have not read it given how he didn't really answer what I said instead gave a question.
>>I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family.
When and what you do mean by this? Can you state this in a different way or bring in a quote to so I might understand what you are saying.
>>That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Yes it does.
>>Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Didn't think anything was in the first place.
>>Punishment is a deterrent, which is good.
I don't think this is true. If that is the case we would see for every punished criminal an impact on future crime. The stats I don't think layout punishment being an effective way at deterring crimes. I guess if you had crime stats and showed how a lot of people were in jail then it has been steadily I'll believe it but I doubt that is the case.
>>I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
Well yes.
Shouldn't accept debates you can't finish.
Made it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1244/is-christianity-a-good-moral-system-to-follow
Accept if you want
I'll make the debate and you can choose to accept. It'll but if you are there first you can accept.
I'll notify you when it is created.
Can't really think of too many arguments.
I could also think of your explanations given here and some other possible ones which I don't think would be eventful.
Can you think of something else?
>>Word choice is a big giveaway.
What word specifically?
>> Don't be rude to Alec
Quote me being rude.
>>Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer.
Yes and I don't think it will ever be given that only 1 life will be impacted by the murderer whereas the person dead would have more than likely 1 more person that cared about them.
>>An eye for an eye, correct?
Well yes but it is definitely more complex than that.
What if it was manslaughter?
The only way to meet a just punishment if we value an equal answer is if that person was also manslaughtered.
This value is me borrowing from Alec's. I don't personally take the side that we should value punishment over rehabilitation. I take the opposite which is why I don't really care about punishment but with what Alec said I found it didn't really make sense.
How can you see emotion through comments?
What was my mood before and when did you think it changed?
Do you understand the #8 comment?
Say what I said in a way that you like. I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question.
No to answer your question.
Your choice.
The amount of harm lets say a murderer committed will not be met given that more than 1 life would be impacted. If lets say a dad was murdered. His wife/girlfriend/lover, parents that are still alive, children, other family and friends would be impacted.
Saying you would commit X punishment on the murderer doesn't actually change that. So the argument that this should occur because it is comparable to what the murderer did is false. Given the murderer impacted multiple lives and the punishment you are issuing will only impact one life.
I guess you can argue it is just but don't know how you would go about it. Care to try?
Can you change the topic or make it more general because there really isn't too much to argue with this?
Okay.
If you want. I'll accept if you create this again.
Sorry I read that badly. I realize what this debate is about. It was your argument against a typical argument against God not what I was going at.
Not the Christian perspective just a definition like Omnipotence is God can do anything. Pro will be arguing how this is not illogical whereas Con will be arguing it is illogical.
I just saw Virtuoso thanking RM during that time. Thought you would thank him as well but guess not.
I don't consider myself obnoxious but it doesn't matter what I think since you are the one making the claim from your perspective not mine.
Tag moderators and tell them your claim.
Are you going to thank RM?
If the debate is centered around if omnipotence disproves God then you should give a neutral view of the definition. Something that both parties can agree on.
Like God can do anything.
From that you can allow the contender to start to list out problems then from that you can lay out how they are not problems. Doing it this would allow the definition to be known so that it isn't really a problem when arguing.
Basically lay out definitions when you create the debate.
#21
Implied here
"This debate is I think going to revolve around the definition of omnipotence since GuitarSlinger didn't bother to give one."
I asked you to do something.
You then reply with something I didn't ask for.
You then decide to confirm that I did state one thing yet you did another.
What you should do when moving forward in these debates is clearly lay out definitions so that you are not arguing definitions instead arguing with the definitions in mind.
When did I argue what Omnipotence was when I specifically stated have a definition?
No.
What was the intention behind you entering this conversation?
Ramshutu made it clear he doesn't want to talk yet you do.
I am sorry you don't understand simple things and are unable to show reasonable counters of mine to be wrong.
I don't think you are left wing enough. Given that I think the best side is the left that comes with what I personally believe.
Try to actually or do a more effective job at creating a foundation. Have it then make other things confirms the foundation. If you can't make it confirm the foundation your foundation is flawed. I haven't personally done this because I am lazy but I am sure it would work for people who wanted to truly know if there foundation is good. This is under the assumption foundations are good which I think they are.
What I try to do when arguing is with every single claim I made is support it with evidence an explanation. I can't believe English was helpful but it was. Without it my formulation would be awful.
Example:
Chrome is better than Opera.
The measurement I am using is booting times.
X videos states upon multiple different states that Chrome shows to be the most consistent with, without plugins and when trying to open previously close windows.
With this information I can conclude that Chrome's boot times are better. This is helpful because it reduces the time taken to get on the platform which means I am quicker to access websites.
Something like that should be fine. If you even attempt what I said here I am sure you would be okay. If you need clarification just ask or tell me how I am wrong or something.
Can't prove your point. Ask the person you are supposed to be proving your claim to provide evidence ("Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history."). Ramshutu logic and also appeal to the crowd while you are at it ("Anyone else interested").
Your answer was not better than mine.
I would say the problem is more with the positions you hold while also how you got there used in a debate. Those arguments you used against me in the death penalty were really bad. I think you should either decide to change your positions or improve your arguments for your existing positions. What I would say pick better positions then improve your arguments but I ain't you.
This debate is I think going to revolve around the definition of omnipotence since GuitarSlinger didn't bother to give one. With this the instigator can use his own definition and the contender can use his own. Not eventful but if this wasn't a problem I still think it would demonstrate what was already the case before. People who already with a side will still agree with that side given the really unlikely scenario that either of them will provide a new or tailored argument to a reader.
Objected to pointless nonsense?
You accused me of something yet can't put in the effort of proving it.
Not my fault you can't support your claim.
From my perspective you gave up without providing evidence for your claim and not being able to show my side was not better.
It is even better to avoid confusion or debate about things that are specific to the debate itself instead of arguing about assumptions or lack thereof in the debate.
"I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point"
Now I know you have lost your mind. Do I need to provide a single occurrence or do you know how laughable this claims is?
I hope in the next comment you are not as delusional here.
What a weird way of stating my position. It is almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
What I wanted was for you to make sure your question as in who had what burden was fulfilled. This debate was about if God exists or not. For the most part it was fulfilled but you decided to state a question you could've asked before accepting. There is no real reason why you didn't do it instead of incompetence (I can't really think of a different answer. Your response because it is debating is lackluster because why didn't you talk about the assumptions of this debate). This debate is an easy win. Have you seen his past debates? You could've just stayed on topic yet you wanted to also argue about the burden. This was entirely useless and preventable. I hope you understand that but doubt it.
The resolution implied was "Life is created by God". You instead chose to spend some characters on changing or setting the assumptions. Instead of simply asking who is doing what outside the debate you instead challenged it in the debate.
There was topic but you chose to challenge the assumptions.
I said demand because if he didn't accept he would have to argue against an assumption while also the resolution.
Why do you have me in the receiver?
How was this about me again?
How about a better way:
Instead of stating it in the debate and demanding the instigator to agree with it. Why not simply agree on it outside the debate?
Why didn't you ask who had which burden instead of stating your position and pretty much demanding the instigator to follow it?
This conversation is over. I have clearly shown just how incapable you are. You can keep talking but I ain't responding to this topic given your "arguments".
>>Not a straw man.
You said something that if you read what I was saying you would've realized it was wrong. Either you memory is bad, you like to selectively read and fill in things you like or can't read. I'll go with the second option. I only copied this given you didn't defend the blatant straw-man and is more likely intentional than unintentional.
>>We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay).
How do we label things? One way is by seeing an action and labeling it as such. If someone is moving really fast they are running. Can't believe you don't even understand this. If we don't label someone being gay we wouldn't know what the person is until they have met a criteria like honestly state what they are or perceive an action.
>> Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate.
Inadequate? Your entire position is inadequate and you defend your laughable misrepresentation with muh "Not a straw man". You call my position inadequate yet you can't give a better way of measuring it. You conceded that your position is less than inadqueate. Glad I know we are on the same page.
>>My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.
You made this up right now. Where was this claim earlier mister I am going to flip flop on my positions?
You said: I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
Yet here you said it is mostly Nurture.
You've shown that you like changing your mind even when you have seen evidence to show your change in my. Like committing intentional straw-men, don't even understand ways that we assign labels and conceded your position is less than inadequate.