You should not base your votes on other people's votes guys, that's being unbiased 101. Not to say I disagree with Fruit's vote, I might actually agree, but you should definitely not be reading them to inform your decision regarding the debate.
Here's you assuming that I don't question those sources. I do. The fact of the matter is that we have verification much beyond anything we have on the bible. We know the author, we have corroborative stories from opposite sides confirming Ceasor. You cannot compare the Bible's credibility to the sources we have from Rome. It would be like comparing a little kitten to a Sabertooth Tiger.
talk about an old argument - you see - this comes from your misunderstanding of how historical sources work. The bible is not credible in what it reports, we do not know who wrote it, we do not know their reliability with recording instances, and any sources of the bible are at the very most third hand, whereas the sources for those people are often primary sources and we have reliability within the authors. This comes back to your misunderstanding of history.
No... the bible claims that millions of jews saw "god", second off, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable without anything to support it. You have to already believe in the bible for the bible to be evidence of god, but you haven't proven the bible to be true.
You have made several assertions without an ounce of evidence to support your claims. No, the bible is not irrefutable, demonstrate that it is; no moses did not write the bible, demonstrate that he did. You have to prove a lot to get there.
Okay... as somebody who discovered that they were pan, this really pissed me off. I know it wasn't intentional, but.... jeez the assumptions being made. You'll see when I make the argument.
The bible isn't a credible source, it's a combination of a whole bunch of 6th or 7th hand testimony, none of which is actually authored by known authors. Furthermore, the entire thing has provably false claims regarding science, the Bible is not irrefutable evidence of anything besides the fact that people don't critically read enough.
The workers on the Pyramids weren't slaves, they had private tombs (which was reserved for the "high courts", they got more food than the average Egyptian, alcohol (as opposed to the most polluted Nile), etc, etc.. The workers of the Pyramids were highly respected and of the high class in Egyptian civilization.
ALSO - why would we provide amnesty for people who never got to learn to read and can't get jobs, then are forced onto the streets, yup, we shouldn't, IDK help them or anything. No need for basic human decency or anything
I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing to make this a policy or offering any suggestions of how it would be done. I am simply arguing that it is preferable either by values of the us government or morally that the US Government allows more immigrants in, this is more of a moral ought argument if you hadn't read the resolution.
If you're so confident you can "harm me" than actually make a valid point. Otherwise you are creating needless trouble for our moderators. Which is at the very least a jerk move. Do you know why Debate.org is such a bad site nowadays? Because of a lack of moderation. Moderation is what keeps this site afloat, please refrain from any more immature bouts of "troll voting".
I thought at the very least you had a valid reason for voting.... seriously? Are you that sore at our disagreement that you want to include that kind of vote? Wow, I used to have a much higher opinion of you.
I wouldn't say so, I'd say people who are modernly liberal happen to agree with socialism, they aren't intrinsically linked. Socialism is an economic structure, modern liberalism is more about social rights.
First of all, it isn't the credibility of the historians we are bringing into question, but the credibility of the people trying to use their work as proof of Jesus. They clearly do not understand, or simply did not read their work fully. Next, nothing can be self-created, that is contradictory - there is no self to create yourself before you existed. Nothing can create itself. Something eternal, beyond energy nothing has been demonstrated to be eternal. The current known universe was caused by the big bang, which, can happen spontanously; however, the state or action that happened before that is not known scientifically. However, it should be considered that before the big bang time did not exist, therefore the laws of causal reaction were not in affect.
Actually, I posted a forum called "The Jesus claim" with my old paper, lol, and yes - yes I do. Not objective morality, get that straight, just that facts can be objective... well.. as close to objective as we can verify.
Not quite, anybody could debunk that page with basic research and reasoning. Furthermore, you keep on asserting that to be the truth, I have yet to see compelling evidence ESPECIALLY of the Judeo Christian god
Find three verifible historic sources that support that claim. Furthermore that those sources are covering people who would actually "know" jesus, as most of the writings of the apostles are from more than 60 years after his death. That is not a valid argument buckuroo.
The point is that corporations, and in some cases, the government; perpetuates racism on a systemic level - for example: if a factory of some sort, pretend its a car factory (the specific thing doesn't matter, just for ease of communication). That car factory 3 different models and 2 of the models work great, but 1 model continuously bugs out, it never passes safety inspections, all of that. Why does it do this? Are the specific parts or workers who program and construct the cars creating this issue? Well, not likely, considering the preponderance of models that fail this continuously. An obvious next question is if the model itself is faulty, but all the blueprints and the models themselves are pretty similar to the other two models, with only differences in asthetics. Why then do they continue like this? This would continue to circle, and the most likely answer seems to be the workers or programmers who make the cars... but for such a large amount of cars of the same model to be constructed incorrectly? That must mean that all or at least most of the workers and programs constructing this car are making the same mistakes, but why then is the factory letting these workers stay? If they perform so obviously wrong? The answer? The factory management itself is under the impression that the workers are making the car correctly.
Thanks for the vote and feedback, the reason I was vague is because of the specific resolution - to use a specific example would be ignoring the second observation I made of the resolution. I don't like to make contradictory arguments. I made the basic claim and provided evidence for each argument structure - and those dropped points were irrelevant to the debate. A lot of the structure was because of the specific resolution.
That is incorrect, you are detecting the paths and sequences of planks of things of that nature, but to apply that to time is to make the fallacy of composition, time is not reliant on planks or any other particle's paths. It is a force that constructs the fabric of space, furthermore, the studies you cited have been... well, let's say elaborated.
Because the source of those things are corporations... and the those corporations are actually causing more damage... the more control the government holds over the corporations the less oppressive they are, which is a direct correlation.
No. they typically created the oppurtunity, as in, they made the rule that say: a black person couldn't enter a restaurant, and then the government followed suit because of, mostly, lobbyist. The source, however, is clearly corporations.
Mostly corporations... in regards of allowing segregation and enforcing segregation, and the government prohibited discriminatory practices in regards to race... so... your point?
You should not base your votes on other people's votes guys, that's being unbiased 101. Not to say I disagree with Fruit's vote, I might actually agree, but you should definitely not be reading them to inform your decision regarding the debate.
Here's you assuming that I don't question those sources. I do. The fact of the matter is that we have verification much beyond anything we have on the bible. We know the author, we have corroborative stories from opposite sides confirming Ceasor. You cannot compare the Bible's credibility to the sources we have from Rome. It would be like comparing a little kitten to a Sabertooth Tiger.
talk about an old argument - you see - this comes from your misunderstanding of how historical sources work. The bible is not credible in what it reports, we do not know who wrote it, we do not know their reliability with recording instances, and any sources of the bible are at the very most third hand, whereas the sources for those people are often primary sources and we have reliability within the authors. This comes back to your misunderstanding of history.
No... the bible claims that millions of jews saw "god", second off, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable without anything to support it. You have to already believe in the bible for the bible to be evidence of god, but you haven't proven the bible to be true.
You have made several assertions without an ounce of evidence to support your claims. No, the bible is not irrefutable, demonstrate that it is; no moses did not write the bible, demonstrate that he did. You have to prove a lot to get there.
Okay... as somebody who discovered that they were pan, this really pissed me off. I know it wasn't intentional, but.... jeez the assumptions being made. You'll see when I make the argument.
I've actually debated this topic quite a lot, so I'm interested to see your argument in its favor.
I look forward to a good debate
The bible isn't a credible source, it's a combination of a whole bunch of 6th or 7th hand testimony, none of which is actually authored by known authors. Furthermore, the entire thing has provably false claims regarding science, the Bible is not irrefutable evidence of anything besides the fact that people don't critically read enough.
The workers on the Pyramids weren't slaves, they had private tombs (which was reserved for the "high courts", they got more food than the average Egyptian, alcohol (as opposed to the most polluted Nile), etc, etc.. The workers of the Pyramids were highly respected and of the high class in Egyptian civilization.
The jews were never even in Egypt during the specified period, much less workers for building the Pyramids.
Well, that's quite flattering, thanks for that. I hope the debates as good as you make it out to be.
Well hopefully I can put up a substantial competition for your HoF worthy argument, we always have a good time here, so I'm looking forward to it.
Why are you assuming all immigrants are illegals
ALSO - why would we provide amnesty for people who never got to learn to read and can't get jobs, then are forced onto the streets, yup, we shouldn't, IDK help them or anything. No need for basic human decency or anything
If you wanna believe that.... go right ahead.... have fun
Biden is currently trying to undo the damage that Trump did, and I would still argue that its not nearly enough
Thanks for taking up the challenge, looking forward to a good debate
I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing to make this a policy or offering any suggestions of how it would be done. I am simply arguing that it is preferable either by values of the us government or morally that the US Government allows more immigrants in, this is more of a moral ought argument if you hadn't read the resolution.
To be fair... you did MAKE the debate... so... that was your decision.
As the Contender it is your responsibility to interpret the resolution and fulfill the burden necessarily assigned
Oh good, I almost thought the debate on the pyramids would be more difficult.
So, yeah Christopher never even made it to America, he made it to South/Central America and did a whole bunch of f*cked up stuff there.
If you're so confident you can "harm me" than actually make a valid point. Otherwise you are creating needless trouble for our moderators. Which is at the very least a jerk move. Do you know why Debate.org is such a bad site nowadays? Because of a lack of moderation. Moderation is what keeps this site afloat, please refrain from any more immature bouts of "troll voting".
I thought at the very least you had a valid reason for voting.... seriously? Are you that sore at our disagreement that you want to include that kind of vote? Wow, I used to have a much higher opinion of you.
And all I'm saying is that that is a generalization
I wouldn't say so, I'd say people who are modernly liberal happen to agree with socialism, they aren't intrinsically linked. Socialism is an economic structure, modern liberalism is more about social rights.
And I don't think this person knows what socialism is.
Forgive me if I'm not inclined to agree.
I'm not, I detest overly boring debates.
Too bad you can hyperlink sources in a single character, lol.
The only reason this debate could be a challenge, the character limit. :)
I should be able to
First of all, it isn't the credibility of the historians we are bringing into question, but the credibility of the people trying to use their work as proof of Jesus. They clearly do not understand, or simply did not read their work fully. Next, nothing can be self-created, that is contradictory - there is no self to create yourself before you existed. Nothing can create itself. Something eternal, beyond energy nothing has been demonstrated to be eternal. The current known universe was caused by the big bang, which, can happen spontanously; however, the state or action that happened before that is not known scientifically. However, it should be considered that before the big bang time did not exist, therefore the laws of causal reaction were not in affect.
Actually, I posted a forum called "The Jesus claim" with my old paper, lol, and yes - yes I do. Not objective morality, get that straight, just that facts can be objective... well.. as close to objective as we can verify.
Not quite, anybody could debunk that page with basic research and reasoning. Furthermore, you keep on asserting that to be the truth, I have yet to see compelling evidence ESPECIALLY of the Judeo Christian god
god, that was a throwback! I debunked that page as a middle schooler, lmao
Find three verifible historic sources that support that claim. Furthermore that those sources are covering people who would actually "know" jesus, as most of the writings of the apostles are from more than 60 years after his death. That is not a valid argument buckuroo.
Anecdotal evidence from a fourth hand source, with no verification to its claims? Must be accurate.
No problemo, this is the second debate on abortion for me - thanks for the opportunity to see if I had improved. Good debate.
The point is that corporations, and in some cases, the government; perpetuates racism on a systemic level - for example: if a factory of some sort, pretend its a car factory (the specific thing doesn't matter, just for ease of communication). That car factory 3 different models and 2 of the models work great, but 1 model continuously bugs out, it never passes safety inspections, all of that. Why does it do this? Are the specific parts or workers who program and construct the cars creating this issue? Well, not likely, considering the preponderance of models that fail this continuously. An obvious next question is if the model itself is faulty, but all the blueprints and the models themselves are pretty similar to the other two models, with only differences in asthetics. Why then do they continue like this? This would continue to circle, and the most likely answer seems to be the workers or programmers who make the cars... but for such a large amount of cars of the same model to be constructed incorrectly? That must mean that all or at least most of the workers and programs constructing this car are making the same mistakes, but why then is the factory letting these workers stay? If they perform so obviously wrong? The answer? The factory management itself is under the impression that the workers are making the car correctly.
Thanks for the vote and feedback, the reason I was vague is because of the specific resolution - to use a specific example would be ignoring the second observation I made of the resolution. I don't like to make contradictory arguments. I made the basic claim and provided evidence for each argument structure - and those dropped points were irrelevant to the debate. A lot of the structure was because of the specific resolution.
There seemed to be a lot of agreement with you, would you care if I were to make a debate: "On balance the US should tighten gun control policies"?
the sourcing is misleading, most of it outdated and not correctly interpreted or just flatly wrong - I look forward to your response Seldiora.
Wagyu did, I was referring to you as the low hanging fruit, hence, "no offence"
Because Wagyu accepted the debate, and was the one I was talking too. You happened to be the source of "conversation".
You really tried for the low-hanging fruit here..... no offense Subaccount
That is incorrect, you are detecting the paths and sequences of planks of things of that nature, but to apply that to time is to make the fallacy of composition, time is not reliant on planks or any other particle's paths. It is a force that constructs the fabric of space, furthermore, the studies you cited have been... well, let's say elaborated.
Because the source of those things are corporations... and the those corporations are actually causing more damage... the more control the government holds over the corporations the less oppressive they are, which is a direct correlation.
No. they typically created the oppurtunity, as in, they made the rule that say: a black person couldn't enter a restaurant, and then the government followed suit because of, mostly, lobbyist. The source, however, is clearly corporations.
Mostly corporations... in regards of allowing segregation and enforcing segregation, and the government prohibited discriminatory practices in regards to race... so... your point?