It is such common sense that water is not dry that everyone treated the argument as if that were already assumed to be true. If it weren't, Con would have been able to provide a sufficient counterargument to the notion that water is not dry. Dry means free of liquid or moisture, and water is liquid, so it's not free of itself.
I gave you 30,000 characters and 2 weeks. That is plenty of character space, and the end of my first round still had like 17,000 available characters left. I set the debate up this way because I knew that the nature of this debate would involve scientific studies and research, things that would take a while to find, assess, and compile into the argument. I even advised you to use your 2 weeks well, and to ponder on your arguments to see if there's anything you could improve / add, so you can assess the validity of your round.
The amount of time you're given is plenty of time such that the amount of arguments I threw at you would be very easy to all respond to in detail, even if you dedicated an entire day to each argument, though it's absolutely possible to adequately assess multiple arguments in a single day. I myself have already constructed my entire set of arguments, however that was just the first draft and I still need to give it a rundown to improve my arguments and validity.
So no, I am absolutely not trying to "blitzkrieg strategy" on you, if that means what you described. I'm doing everything I can to make it possible to make the arguments as comprehensive and correct as possible.
I think you're just lying about that. My arguments were structured and coherent just fine, not gibberish, and the only things I copy pasted were the Plato quotes, and the source links, both of which are very standard things to copy and paste.
Stop trying to introduce your opponent negatively to your voters before they even get the chance to form their own opinion. That's a bad faith way to debate, and if you actually cared about working towards the truth, you wouldn't do that. If you are confident that your conclusions are right, you shouldn't be afraid of people reviewing the arguments for themselves so they can come to their own conclusion, which, if you are right, means they will come to the same conclusion you come to because it is the most logical. The only time someone will be afraid of their claims being scrutinized is if they aren't confident that they're right, and they won't admit it.
If you actually read the debate, you would know. But I'll tell you here anyway. Con realized that he just wasn't passionate enough about this topic to put that much effort into his arguments, and thus he conceded the win to me. But since there were still more rounds to be finished, we have to put in filler text so the time would pass by faster, so we just started putting random unrelated pieces of text in the debate. Thus, the judges should focus on the coherent argument portion of the debate, and if you read all of them, then it'll be very clear when the debate ends.
After looking at my opponent's history with debating, I think there's a pretty good chance that this debate is going to end up being a dud, because he has a history of flaking, and has only ever showed up for an argument once. There's a good chance I'll have to remake this debate if that ends up being the case.
I think I may have accidentally invalidated the link I provided involving the study that showed that aquatic life including mollusks once existed in the richat, because whenever I click on it, it does nothing. So here it is in case that's a problem for everyone: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003552111000902
I encourage you to use well the two weeks of time you have. Even if you complete your argument by 3 days, maybe take a day or two to ponder and double check the argument, and refine it to make it as good and accurate as possible.
Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again.
It has to be useful to something that is useful. Since debating is useful in strengthening your ability to critically think, and critical thinking is a useful skill in life, that makes debating useful. But saying debating is useful for debating doesn't claim anything outside of itself. If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? It's an infinite loop that never gets resolved until you realize something else useful that it is useful for.
I said "anything relevant / useful." Is debating relevant / useful? That's the exact question this debate is asking. Therefore, using that as an argument is nothing but a baseless claim that eats its own tail. I mean I suppose "relevant / useful" is a bit different from "needed," but you get my point.
A person's brain doesn't finish developing until about 25 years old, though I'd say they can be mature way younger than that in spite of that. It really depends on how they're raised. And because you can't guarantee that everybody was raised well, you legally can't in good faith lower the adult age. Though if the government cared more about catching problems before they happen, that'd be less of an issue.
Should I start *another* water is wet debate so I can have it with someone more competent? This debate did not do the water-isn't-wet side justice, so my position on water being wet hasn't really been adequately challenged yet.
I had a pretty bad debate opponent so maybe some time I'll debate it a third time to get the answer. This website is just a good tool for figuring things out.
Nobody seemed to notice that I accidentally contradicted myself when I said that Merriam Webster's definition of wet contradicted con's definition of wet (which came from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition), because Merriam Webster's allowed water to be wet, whereas con's did not. When in the very paragraph, I mentioned that water actually can be covered with water, as water molecules are covered with other water molecules, meaning that Merriam Webster's definition does not contradict con's definition, but in the opposite way that con intended.
Despite this, my point still stands, because the ultimate resolution is that both definitions agree that water is wet.
You seem to be referring to adhesion, which water does on itself. I think most molecules are polar, but in solids are found hooked together mechanically so they stay put. So polar water molecules attract to them and ultimately stick to them. This is exactly what water molecules do with each other, so water molecules adhere to each other. Meaning that defining wetness based on adhesion still qualifies water as wet. Although technically adhering to oneself is called cohesion, but it's still the exact same mechanism going on, it just goes by a different name.
So if you have a hydrophobic solid, water will not adhere to it, and therefore you may not consider the solid itself to be wet. But since the water molecules are adhering to each other, they are wet. So water is wet.
It's a superpower, so I think it absolutely would have the power to make the earth flat. What would have made an irrefutable rebuttal to the idea of such a superpower is proposing the hypothetical scenario in which the person with this superpower says "I am wrong." If the superpower causes them to always be right, then they are right that they are wrong, meaning that they are wrong. But they can't be wrong, because the superpower requires that they are always right, meaning that they can't be wrong. But that means that he's wrong about the fact that he's wrong, since he must always be right due to the superpower, making him once again wrong.
Actually, water can fit the "covered with" description, because the border is drawn at individual water molecules, which are all covered with other water molecules, together behaving in a liquid state between each other.
Just because something cannot become wet doesn't mean it isn't wet. In fact, that argument states that it cannot become wet specifically because it was never formally dry, and then became wet, upholding my argument that water is not dry. Bringing us onto your baseless claim that "Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is 'wet' because it isn't dry." Sorry, but if wet is the antonym of dry, and water isn't dry, it is wet. That's just how opposites work.
How can it be neither wet nor dry? I already said that there is no case for the fantastical "third state" only ever proposed when arguing for water not being wet.
Well I wasn't particularly going to put that much focus on the fine line definitions (mainstream definitions one could site actually contradict each other). I'm going to go about it a bit differently.
Correction: the "cosmic rays" I was referring to are actually high energy neutrons that can accidentally enter a nitrogen nucleus, which causes it to eject a proton, and that's how the nitrogen-14 is converted into carbon-14. I previously thought that this was light impacting a neutron and turning it into a proton, but that's physically impossible.
You did not present your arguments in the description. What you presented in the description was a series of questions to discuss as topics of the debate. You never asserted an argument, until you baselessly claimed that the Bible is not unscientific, and then tried to slither out of having to make an argument by saying that you already did, even though you didn't.
I agree that the way many scientists today interpret the radiocarbon dating of fossils is flawed, but you completely missed the mark on the most damning piece of evidence against it. And I think I know why.
When scientists look at the amount of carbon in a fossil, they're checking for how much carbon-12 and carbon-14 there is. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere today is 1/1,000,000,000,000. So, when they look at the amount of carbon-12 in a fossil, all they need to do is divide that by 1 trillion, and that's the amount of carbon-14 there was in the fossil when it died. Compare that to the amount there is today, and you can determine how old it is based on how long it would have taken for that starting amount of carbon-14 to have decayed into the current amount of carbon-14.
But it is the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 for millions of years that distorts scientists' conclusions. In reality, there was significantly less carbon-14 and significantly more carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then. Why? Because the earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, causing it to deflect more cosmic rays, so less cosmic rays end up turning nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, thus there is less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there was very likely more animal life back then, all land animals of which exhaling carbon dioxide, which would all consist of carbon-12, increasing the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then.
So the resulting fossils have more carbon-12 and less carbon-14 than what scientists assume for a fossil that is as old as it actually is, because they think that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 all that time ago, even though it was actually a lot smaller than that.
I suspect that the reason you missed this was because you didn't actually do enough research to adequately argue for your point. All you had was a handful of pieces of knowledge you remembered, and tried your absolute hardest to make the most out of those few, not very convincing pieces of evidence. I suspected this because I've done it in the past.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
I like debating. Really I don't think my failures had anything to do with the way I was debating and everything to do with what I was debating about. Basically anything I'm not completely confident in will undoubtedly lead to me flaking eventually. If I do complete it, it's with very little energy left.
I really don't know if there's many people that aren't lying to themselves when they say that they barely care about looks. It's important to be attracted to your partner, and for you to do what you can to be as attractive as you can for your partner, because they like it.
It is such common sense that water is not dry that everyone treated the argument as if that were already assumed to be true. If it weren't, Con would have been able to provide a sufficient counterargument to the notion that water is not dry. Dry means free of liquid or moisture, and water is liquid, so it's not free of itself.
I gave you 30,000 characters and 2 weeks. That is plenty of character space, and the end of my first round still had like 17,000 available characters left. I set the debate up this way because I knew that the nature of this debate would involve scientific studies and research, things that would take a while to find, assess, and compile into the argument. I even advised you to use your 2 weeks well, and to ponder on your arguments to see if there's anything you could improve / add, so you can assess the validity of your round.
The amount of time you're given is plenty of time such that the amount of arguments I threw at you would be very easy to all respond to in detail, even if you dedicated an entire day to each argument, though it's absolutely possible to adequately assess multiple arguments in a single day. I myself have already constructed my entire set of arguments, however that was just the first draft and I still need to give it a rundown to improve my arguments and validity.
So no, I am absolutely not trying to "blitzkrieg strategy" on you, if that means what you described. I'm doing everything I can to make it possible to make the arguments as comprehensive and correct as possible.
I don't particularly care about voting in a jonrohith debate.
I think you're just lying about that. My arguments were structured and coherent just fine, not gibberish, and the only things I copy pasted were the Plato quotes, and the source links, both of which are very standard things to copy and paste.
Stop trying to introduce your opponent negatively to your voters before they even get the chance to form their own opinion. That's a bad faith way to debate, and if you actually cared about working towards the truth, you wouldn't do that. If you are confident that your conclusions are right, you shouldn't be afraid of people reviewing the arguments for themselves so they can come to their own conclusion, which, if you are right, means they will come to the same conclusion you come to because it is the most logical. The only time someone will be afraid of their claims being scrutinized is if they aren't confident that they're right, and they won't admit it.
If you actually read the debate, you would know. But I'll tell you here anyway. Con realized that he just wasn't passionate enough about this topic to put that much effort into his arguments, and thus he conceded the win to me. But since there were still more rounds to be finished, we have to put in filler text so the time would pass by faster, so we just started putting random unrelated pieces of text in the debate. Thus, the judges should focus on the coherent argument portion of the debate, and if you read all of them, then it'll be very clear when the debate ends.
After looking at my opponent's history with debating, I think there's a pretty good chance that this debate is going to end up being a dud, because he has a history of flaking, and has only ever showed up for an argument once. There's a good chance I'll have to remake this debate if that ends up being the case.
Apologies for that, I haven't seemed to remember the whole definitions thing when I make my arguments, but I'll do that in the future.
I think I may have accidentally invalidated the link I provided involving the study that showed that aquatic life including mollusks once existed in the richat, because whenever I click on it, it does nothing. So here it is in case that's a problem for everyone: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003552111000902
I encourage you to use well the two weeks of time you have. Even if you complete your argument by 3 days, maybe take a day or two to ponder and double check the argument, and refine it to make it as good and accurate as possible.
By the way, here is Genesis 1:1-2 in my much more sensible language, Remace:
Šlô tě ôlozû Yowâ blř əwôgř ûp blř urî. Ûp blř urî bwî jî gwaťe ûp pî, ûp wûťe râ blř yu, ûp wûzû křzû crě Yowâ blř fwřgř.
Okay. I'd still give you the legibility point, you had better legibility. That's how this works.
Crap
Well this debate means basically nothing anyway so I suppose it doesn't particularly matter.
Okay I'm done with this trolling.
That was an extremely boring and unremarkable debate and I have no idea why it exists.
If that's what begging the question means.
Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again.
It has to be useful to something that is useful. Since debating is useful in strengthening your ability to critically think, and critical thinking is a useful skill in life, that makes debating useful. But saying debating is useful for debating doesn't claim anything outside of itself. If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? It's an infinite loop that never gets resolved until you realize something else useful that it is useful for.
I said "anything relevant / useful." Is debating relevant / useful? That's the exact question this debate is asking. Therefore, using that as an argument is nothing but a baseless claim that eats its own tail. I mean I suppose "relevant / useful" is a bit different from "needed," but you get my point.
If you can't name anything relevant / useful that debates are needed for, debates are not needed.
What?
Then I think you just screwed everything up.
I've gotten good at that over time, especially as a Christian who's watched a lot of atheist videos.
A person's brain doesn't finish developing until about 25 years old, though I'd say they can be mature way younger than that in spite of that. It really depends on how they're raised. And because you can't guarantee that everybody was raised well, you legally can't in good faith lower the adult age. Though if the government cared more about catching problems before they happen, that'd be less of an issue.
Between water not being dry, and fire being not burned.*
Should I start *another* water is wet debate so I can have it with someone more competent? This debate did not do the water-isn't-wet side justice, so my position on water being wet hasn't really been adequately challenged yet.
I had a pretty bad debate opponent so maybe some time I'll debate it a third time to get the answer. This website is just a good tool for figuring things out.
What?
Nobody seemed to notice that I accidentally contradicted myself when I said that Merriam Webster's definition of wet contradicted con's definition of wet (which came from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition), because Merriam Webster's allowed water to be wet, whereas con's did not. When in the very paragraph, I mentioned that water actually can be covered with water, as water molecules are covered with other water molecules, meaning that Merriam Webster's definition does not contradict con's definition, but in the opposite way that con intended.
Despite this, my point still stands, because the ultimate resolution is that both definitions agree that water is wet.
You seem to be referring to adhesion, which water does on itself. I think most molecules are polar, but in solids are found hooked together mechanically so they stay put. So polar water molecules attract to them and ultimately stick to them. This is exactly what water molecules do with each other, so water molecules adhere to each other. Meaning that defining wetness based on adhesion still qualifies water as wet. Although technically adhering to oneself is called cohesion, but it's still the exact same mechanism going on, it just goes by a different name.
So if you have a hydrophobic solid, water will not adhere to it, and therefore you may not consider the solid itself to be wet. But since the water molecules are adhering to each other, they are wet. So water is wet.
I realized that the moment I understood the superpower, considering similar concepts like "This statement is false," or "My nose will grow now."
It's a superpower, so I think it absolutely would have the power to make the earth flat. What would have made an irrefutable rebuttal to the idea of such a superpower is proposing the hypothetical scenario in which the person with this superpower says "I am wrong." If the superpower causes them to always be right, then they are right that they are wrong, meaning that they are wrong. But they can't be wrong, because the superpower requires that they are always right, meaning that they can't be wrong. But that means that he's wrong about the fact that he's wrong, since he must always be right due to the superpower, making him once again wrong.
Actually, water can fit the "covered with" description, because the border is drawn at individual water molecules, which are all covered with other water molecules, together behaving in a liquid state between each other.
Just because something cannot become wet doesn't mean it isn't wet. In fact, that argument states that it cannot become wet specifically because it was never formally dry, and then became wet, upholding my argument that water is not dry. Bringing us onto your baseless claim that "Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is 'wet' because it isn't dry." Sorry, but if wet is the antonym of dry, and water isn't dry, it is wet. That's just how opposites work.
How can it be neither wet nor dry? I already said that there is no case for the fantastical "third state" only ever proposed when arguing for water not being wet.
I think I had a stroke reading that.
Well I wasn't particularly going to put that much focus on the fine line definitions (mainstream definitions one could site actually contradict each other). I'm going to go about it a bit differently.
Correction: the "cosmic rays" I was referring to are actually high energy neutrons that can accidentally enter a nitrogen nucleus, which causes it to eject a proton, and that's how the nitrogen-14 is converted into carbon-14. I previously thought that this was light impacting a neutron and turning it into a proton, but that's physically impossible.
Looks like I spit bars of gold and you spit bars of coal.
You did not present your arguments in the description. What you presented in the description was a series of questions to discuss as topics of the debate. You never asserted an argument, until you baselessly claimed that the Bible is not unscientific, and then tried to slither out of having to make an argument by saying that you already did, even though you didn't.
I agree that the way many scientists today interpret the radiocarbon dating of fossils is flawed, but you completely missed the mark on the most damning piece of evidence against it. And I think I know why.
When scientists look at the amount of carbon in a fossil, they're checking for how much carbon-12 and carbon-14 there is. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere today is 1/1,000,000,000,000. So, when they look at the amount of carbon-12 in a fossil, all they need to do is divide that by 1 trillion, and that's the amount of carbon-14 there was in the fossil when it died. Compare that to the amount there is today, and you can determine how old it is based on how long it would have taken for that starting amount of carbon-14 to have decayed into the current amount of carbon-14.
But it is the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 for millions of years that distorts scientists' conclusions. In reality, there was significantly less carbon-14 and significantly more carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then. Why? Because the earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, causing it to deflect more cosmic rays, so less cosmic rays end up turning nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, thus there is less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there was very likely more animal life back then, all land animals of which exhaling carbon dioxide, which would all consist of carbon-12, increasing the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then.
So the resulting fossils have more carbon-12 and less carbon-14 than what scientists assume for a fossil that is as old as it actually is, because they think that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 all that time ago, even though it was actually a lot smaller than that.
I suspect that the reason you missed this was because you didn't actually do enough research to adequately argue for your point. All you had was a handful of pieces of knowledge you remembered, and tried your absolute hardest to make the most out of those few, not very convincing pieces of evidence. I suspected this because I've done it in the past.
Only 55 minutes left.
Where I come from, the "ange" in orange is pronounced like the "inge" in hinge.
Where I come from, the "ange" in orange is pronounced like the "inge" in hinge.
I know, "more range" doesn't rhyme with "orange." No one says "orAInge."
Real
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
I like debating. Really I don't think my failures had anything to do with the way I was debating and everything to do with what I was debating about. Basically anything I'm not completely confident in will undoubtedly lead to me flaking eventually. If I do complete it, it's with very little energy left.
Because most of the time I just lose all energy in the debate I'm in, so I just procrastinate to the last hour, or sometimes later.
Yeah I just gave up on that. I shouldn't have tried rejoining this website.
Yeah, I'll get to it soon. I'm not sure if I'll be available today though.
I really don't know if there's many people that aren't lying to themselves when they say that they barely care about looks. It's important to be attracted to your partner, and for you to do what you can to be as attractive as you can for your partner, because they like it.