I still say it's a little bit sneaky. I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong.
I say it's sneaky because he says the Con is not allowed to challenge it at all. And, if Con didn't read the description thoroughly, he has a great disadvantage.
I know you want it to be a secret now, but it's pretty obvious if you look at the debates 'BestKorea should not be banned from this site' and 'most children are evil'
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6060-bestkorea-should-not-be-banned-from-this-site
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5737-most-children-are-evil
This is a stupid topic for debate ngl. If we follow your definition of war crimes, Israel factually did commit war crimes. It's impossible to argue the Con side.
Who are you do declare that it's a "barely relevant issue"? Who are you to declare that telling people what the Bible says is not worth losing potential followers? What you essentially said is we should intentionally not tell people interested in Christianity things that conflict with their lifestyle. If someone is only a 'Christian' because they don't know that the Bible says they have to change their lifestyle, then they are not actually a follower of 'Christianity' but a follower of 'some of the Bible's rules'. If you don't accept all of what the Bible says, you are simply not a true Christian. You can not pick and choose which rules to follow. Obeying just SOME of God's commandments doesn't make you a Christian. If I wanted to disregard every rule in the Bible except 'do not murder', would you say I am a Christian because I followed that commandment? Of course not! To be considered a genuine Christian, you must regard all of the moral laws set in place by God
That's not how religion works bro. We can't lie about the rules in the Bible to get more followers. The purpose of Christianity is not to get as many followers as possible, but to teach people what God says is right and wrong and how God says they should live. It's up to people who hear about what the Bible says whether they want to follow its rules or not. Therefore intentionally not informing people on certain things that the Bible says defeats the purpose of telling them about it in the first place.
Obviously there is at least some evidence for there being a God. IMO The debate should be whether the evidence is strong enough to constitute a higher probability of a God existing than not.
I still say it's a little bit sneaky. I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong.
I say it's sneaky because he says the Con is not allowed to challenge it at all. And, if Con didn't read the description thoroughly, he has a great disadvantage.
Which religion/s?
My comment or this debate???? I'm confused
I would define a person as a human being. That's also how the dictionary defines it
Bro again with the sneaky definitions in the description?
Wanna return the favor and drop a vote? It's an easy one!
I feel like this topic is very vague. Is it just me?
Bro, you/icon literally admitted to being you/sungod in the first link
I know you want it to be a secret now, but it's pretty obvious if you look at the debates 'BestKorea should not be banned from this site' and 'most children are evil'
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6060-bestkorea-should-not-be-banned-from-this-site
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5737-most-children-are-evil
I know you are just thegreatsungod on your trolling alt account. You literally admitted it in several previous debates.
Why did bro only leave two hours per argument
I tried to help you out here with my vote but it appears everyone is siding with Con
😬😬😬
'advanced' is an interesting word there...
I hadn't even had 'the talk' at 8
8 is craaaazy 💀
looks like it lol
thank you
@whiteflame
do that please
I accidentally clicked the wrong thing in my vote. Can you let me edit it somehow?
I'm not super well versed in the topic so it would be an interesting debate to read
I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas
This is a stupid topic for debate ngl. If we follow your definition of war crimes, Israel factually did commit war crimes. It's impossible to argue the Con side.
Thank you for your vote @Barney
No (helpful) votes 😔
Least obvious rage bait lol
vote?
You also claimed that Jesus and the Bible never made any direct statements concerning LGBT or virgin marriage, which is simply false.
Who are you do declare that it's a "barely relevant issue"? Who are you to declare that telling people what the Bible says is not worth losing potential followers? What you essentially said is we should intentionally not tell people interested in Christianity things that conflict with their lifestyle. If someone is only a 'Christian' because they don't know that the Bible says they have to change their lifestyle, then they are not actually a follower of 'Christianity' but a follower of 'some of the Bible's rules'. If you don't accept all of what the Bible says, you are simply not a true Christian. You can not pick and choose which rules to follow. Obeying just SOME of God's commandments doesn't make you a Christian. If I wanted to disregard every rule in the Bible except 'do not murder', would you say I am a Christian because I followed that commandment? Of course not! To be considered a genuine Christian, you must regard all of the moral laws set in place by God
That's not how religion works bro. We can't lie about the rules in the Bible to get more followers. The purpose of Christianity is not to get as many followers as possible, but to teach people what God says is right and wrong and how God says they should live. It's up to people who hear about what the Bible says whether they want to follow its rules or not. Therefore intentionally not informing people on certain things that the Bible says defeats the purpose of telling them about it in the first place.
Would appreciate some votes if you can spare the time!
Obviously there is at least some evidence for there being a God. IMO The debate should be whether the evidence is strong enough to constitute a higher probability of a God existing than not.
So much spam and nonsense. focus on relevant and strong points instead of insane quantities. It's a better experience for everyone