"Atheism is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject."
lol. Theism is arbitrary because it is the faith and emotion based opinion of man rather than reason sitting as the absolute authority.
"It is illogical because it relies on strict materialism."
Why is that illogical? Are we not made of matter? There is more evidence for matter than there is for magic God juice being the source of existence.
"It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality."
Why would you assume that? What objective reasoning says I shouldn't feed christians to lions?
"Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true."
The opposite is true, because science is based on evidence and the bible is based on mindlessly accepting superstitious nonsense with no evidence.
"Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible."
There is no logic in the bible you stupid piece of shit.
"Lastly, atheism leads to the path of absurdity."
You are just making assertions based on bias, faith, and your own insanely low intelligence levels. You are literally subhuman as there is no other excuse for such baseless drivel being spewed in the fucking information age when so much knowledge is available.
What you and many others don't understand, with this debate in particular and many others, is that it is largely philosophical and requires REASON rather than just empirical data. For a "rational" madman you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding this. That being said, it requires one to THINK rather than just fall back on sources, and as it stands, the majority of debaters here spend their time constantly and robotically falling back on sources rather than using their own brains.
Your vote shouldn't even count as it's just an expression of pure bias. Giving him a conduct point even though he misrepresented my whole argument, you're a dumb ass.
Of course of course...technically there could be an invisible purple penguin tap dancing on your head in a quantum superposition of 11th dimensional space/time. It could be pooping down the side of your face and you wouldn't even know it.
The idea that viruses don't exist is indefensible, it's like denying that the sun exists or that trees exist, we literally have viruses in laboratories right now.
Well I'll start out by saying that America's very political system is right wing and socialism is largely taboo in mainstream American politics. In many other countries socialism is actually seen as an option whereas in America most people don't even know what socialism is and are only told that it is bad.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Democratic_Party
Canada may have a lower GDP, but it also has a higher standard of living. California is the US state with the highest GDP and it is considered one of the most left leaning. Also America regularly and continually engages in economic imperialism which is where much of it's resources come from, not only that but many more left leaning countries are smaller and were less developed to begin with so comparing them with America is not a good way to determine if socialistic systems can work in general. Many countries which right wingers point at and say "see, socialism is crap" were poor to begin with and actually improved under socialism.
Technocracy is the idea that politics in general is inadequate in addressing the socio-economic needs of mankind and that all things, including society are based in technical/materialistic realities. Society is governed by methodology in technocracy and decisions are "arrived at" or extrapolated rather than "made" by individuals.
No, a dem-soc is a Socialist, a soc-dem wants a mixed economy. In America things don't mean the same thing as they do elsewhere. Our "left" is actually closer to centrists by universal standards. That being said, you've never experienced real left wing government and are gravely mistaken about it's true nature. Obama was the closest thing you've had and he is center-left.
Socialism is a blanket term for anything that is on the far left, social democracy is in between capitalism and socialism. Communism was always a form of socialism, but all socialists are not communists. Democratic socialism is seen by marxists as a step towards communism while some see that as the goal in itself. I am something which is not well known but technically socialistic so I just call myself a socialist. It is basically a mixture between communism and technocracy, it's called a Resource Based Economy.
A social democrat generally wants a controlled market with strong regulations on large corporations, more social programs and more democracy. They are like democrats except they take a top-down reformist approach to bringing things farther left. A dem-soc on the other hand is a full on socialist who is totally against capitalism. They want to straight up collectivize the means of production and many of them are Marxists.
Maybe you're right about that but he is a reformist in terms of his platform. A dem-soc would want to bring America down and change the whole system from the ground up.
Yes and I'm sure it has sold more than Kahlil Gibran and Edgar Allen Poe as well, that doesn't make it more meaningful. How well something sells has nothing to do with whether or not it is better. Take a look at these two raps, notice that the one that is popular sucks and the one that isn't is good.
Dr Seuss was good at producing LSD inspired nursery rhymes and drawings which told stories of his astral planes of LSD. He was not a particularly advanced rhymer though in terms of the structure of his rhyme schemes.
I see, you want it 4 vs 4. I'll do it your way but there's a chance having Em on your team will win you the debate in and of itself. You can have Em on your side and I'll use the other 4 although I actually think Eminem is the best of them in terms of rhyming. I might also replace Anylist with Clokworx who I don't think you've heard of.
It's hard to say. Boxing is cool and all but it has the potential to statistically increase the brain damage levels of the general school going population.
I'm an entity of a higher frequency
I don't sleep or need
to even eat or breath
my features seem
to make the bravest creatures scream
because I look like like extraterrestrial star fleet marine
who will eat your spleen
plus the fluids that I bleed are green
I traveled to the milky way with a gift
I flew right past the earth and gave it to Sith
they stayed at a dis-
-stance cause' I came in equipped
with a lightsaber blade that's the length of a ship
the gift I gave em' was a quantum computer encased in a chip
and the waves it emits
could reprogram brains in an ins-stant
but what they didn't realize, is that they would submit
and becomes my slaves if they let
me convince em' to take it, and with
their help I would claim ownership
of your galaxy
I exist in all 11 dimensions of reality
and implode your cranium when I detonate your fallacies
so who's brave enough to test me?
I could be chained and cuffed, and next be
drained of luck
with my mouth duct taped and shut
and still I'll slay the fuckin' MC
who foolishly came against me
and now his cranium's empty
you drown in the depths
of my sound and my text
you can see me in the sky, catching clouds in a net
I'm bound to impress
but I don't count on finesse
I rap like a chimpanzee poundin' his chest
I compressed six books
on to the tip of a fish hook
and simultaneously read em' all with a quick look
if you mistook
me for a member of mankind
it's because I can grind
my body up and reform it from time to time
and my
ability to craft a grand rhyme
that can short circuit a quantum computer's RAM drive
every verse can cause a landslide
cause' when I rap I use doton-no-jutsu handsigns
plus my craniums a van's size
and my reversed waveforms scan whatever I'm scanned by
A Socialist atheist is your mortal enemy, a Capitalist liberal atheist is still not your ally but more tolerable to the Conservative Christian. They are people you merely dislike, but I am your mortal ideological enemy.
It's pretty much true though. For example if I, a Socialist lose a debate about Socialism, it's not because I'm wrong but because all the voters already had the very same opinion about Socialism to begin with. Therefore the majority is automatically biased against me and biased for my opponent's side because you are all within a relatively similar paradigm (including mainline liberals who still believe in Capitalism.) That is just one example, everyone is biased against me because I am so removed from normal ways of thinking. As a conservative Christian you probably already believe the lie that Socialism is about the state owning the means of production, and all of your favorite propagandists like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson have been reinforcing that belief for years so no matter what I say the majority will always automatically dismiss it. This is why I technically don't lose half the debate I lose, it's just that everyone is automatically against me because I'm not a yankee doodle ding dong.
If you know that reviewers opinions and sale statistics are useless then why are we even having this conversation? I think it's because you have something against me because I'm not a conservative christian waggly doodle.
Your vote was invalid for more than just the reason it was removed. When I provide reasons for my position and the opponent simply says "but here's a list of games that are more popular" and thus refuses to make an actual argument, and then you believe their assertion that I am conceding when they are in fact conceding by refusing to stick to actual arguments, then you don't deserve a say in who wins this debate.
What made you think I was going to read that? From only reading the first sentence I could tell were it was going. Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is proof that you are actually the one conceding right now. You just indirectly admitted that you don't have any arguments and only appeals to popularity and authority.
I didn't claim I was a genius you sophistic dingle berry. The fact is the real world is cruel and merciless to anyone who doesn't fall into either the "wolf" or the "sheep" category.
Where are your facts? Selling well does not make something better. You have to explain why it's better and not just fall back on some arbitrary standard of how many people decided to buy it based on their subjective preference.
It's so obvious that sales/popularity don't equate to quality that the very fact I need to explain it proves my point that if a genius where to join this site, they would "lose" even more often than me because "winning" means you have appealed and gained the favor of a hoard of witless troglodytes.
I suspect the opposite of what you say is true. I don't appeal to the majority's sensibilities because I am not one of the common rabble, thus I always "lose" when it's left up to majority opinion.
Focusing on sales is an appeal to popularity. Critical consensus is an appeal to authority. Only examining the actual games and making your own arguments holds any weight.
I already told you I won't debate someone who appeals to popularity and uses sales as their sole argument. As far as winning is concerned, I'm beginning to think that being wrong is a requirement for "winning" 9/10 times. If I were to intentionally promote the exact opposite of the truth then I would "win" by majority vote much more often.
Your arguments are non-existent, you merely appeal to popularity without addressing anything of substance. You literally didn't make a single point this whole time.
"Atheism is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject."
lol. Theism is arbitrary because it is the faith and emotion based opinion of man rather than reason sitting as the absolute authority.
"It is illogical because it relies on strict materialism."
Why is that illogical? Are we not made of matter? There is more evidence for matter than there is for magic God juice being the source of existence.
"It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality."
Why would you assume that? What objective reasoning says I shouldn't feed christians to lions?
"Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true."
The opposite is true, because science is based on evidence and the bible is based on mindlessly accepting superstitious nonsense with no evidence.
"Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible."
There is no logic in the bible you stupid piece of shit.
"Lastly, atheism leads to the path of absurdity."
You are just making assertions based on bias, faith, and your own insanely low intelligence levels. You are literally subhuman as there is no other excuse for such baseless drivel being spewed in the fucking information age when so much knowledge is available.
The pro of this debate is particularly novice-like.
What you and many others don't understand, with this debate in particular and many others, is that it is largely philosophical and requires REASON rather than just empirical data. For a "rational" madman you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding this. That being said, it requires one to THINK rather than just fall back on sources, and as it stands, the majority of debaters here spend their time constantly and robotically falling back on sources rather than using their own brains.
Do you want to be a rapper professionally some day or do you just rap for fun?
Don't make fun of RM or the aliens will get you and push you off the edge of flat earth.
Your vote shouldn't even count as it's just an expression of pure bias. Giving him a conduct point even though he misrepresented my whole argument, you're a dumb ass.
Yep, so start wiping up invisible penguin poop and practice what you preach.
Of course of course...technically there could be an invisible purple penguin tap dancing on your head in a quantum superposition of 11th dimensional space/time. It could be pooping down the side of your face and you wouldn't even know it.
The idea that viruses don't exist is indefensible, it's like denying that the sun exists or that trees exist, we literally have viruses in laboratories right now.
Okay whenever you're ready.
Well I'll start out by saying that America's very political system is right wing and socialism is largely taboo in mainstream American politics. In many other countries socialism is actually seen as an option whereas in America most people don't even know what socialism is and are only told that it is bad.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Democratic_Party
Canada may have a lower GDP, but it also has a higher standard of living. California is the US state with the highest GDP and it is considered one of the most left leaning. Also America regularly and continually engages in economic imperialism which is where much of it's resources come from, not only that but many more left leaning countries are smaller and were less developed to begin with so comparing them with America is not a good way to determine if socialistic systems can work in general. Many countries which right wingers point at and say "see, socialism is crap" were poor to begin with and actually improved under socialism.
Technocracy is the idea that politics in general is inadequate in addressing the socio-economic needs of mankind and that all things, including society are based in technical/materialistic realities. Society is governed by methodology in technocracy and decisions are "arrived at" or extrapolated rather than "made" by individuals.
No, a dem-soc is a Socialist, a soc-dem wants a mixed economy. In America things don't mean the same thing as they do elsewhere. Our "left" is actually closer to centrists by universal standards. That being said, you've never experienced real left wing government and are gravely mistaken about it's true nature. Obama was the closest thing you've had and he is center-left.
Socialism is a blanket term for anything that is on the far left, social democracy is in between capitalism and socialism. Communism was always a form of socialism, but all socialists are not communists. Democratic socialism is seen by marxists as a step towards communism while some see that as the goal in itself. I am something which is not well known but technically socialistic so I just call myself a socialist. It is basically a mixture between communism and technocracy, it's called a Resource Based Economy.
Ok, I'll make another when someone accepts this one.
A social democrat generally wants a controlled market with strong regulations on large corporations, more social programs and more democracy. They are like democrats except they take a top-down reformist approach to bringing things farther left. A dem-soc on the other hand is a full on socialist who is totally against capitalism. They want to straight up collectivize the means of production and many of them are Marxists.
Maybe you're right about that but he is a reformist in terms of his platform. A dem-soc would want to bring America down and change the whole system from the ground up.
That just makes me want to debate him now. Perhaps I can make another one for Alec and he can take this one.
Socialism, Alec wanted this debate though.
Fine but don't inflame my nut sack.
Yes, it's possible....but not likely.
Wanna know a secret? I was lil' pump this whole time. That's right, it's lil pump in this bih.
I forgot to mention ClokWorx. I will be throwing them in there too.
So you want to make your own team and debate against the rappers I originally proposed?
Eminem is a way better rhymer than them. You must be smoking peyote nuggets.
Yeah pump is like the bozongaloogie woo woo of rap bro. No one can fuck with his lyricism. He's got that masta flow up in this shizzwiggle namsain?
I am a better authority on what is better than 5 year olds and people who listen to lil pump.
I actually think lil pump is a way better rapper than Eminem. He has the most lyrically incricatisms ever.
that's over 300 mill views for that retarded shit and a few thousand for a genuine piece of art.
Yes and I'm sure it has sold more than Kahlil Gibran and Edgar Allen Poe as well, that doesn't make it more meaningful. How well something sells has nothing to do with whether or not it is better. Take a look at these two raps, notice that the one that is popular sucks and the one that isn't is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxL7dO5XPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unMfKu9EAvk
Dr Seuss was good at producing LSD inspired nursery rhymes and drawings which told stories of his astral planes of LSD. He was not a particularly advanced rhymer though in terms of the structure of his rhyme schemes.
I see, you want it 4 vs 4. I'll do it your way but there's a chance having Em on your team will win you the debate in and of itself. You can have Em on your side and I'll use the other 4 although I actually think Eminem is the best of them in terms of rhyming. I might also replace Anylist with Clokworx who I don't think you've heard of.
It's hard to say. Boxing is cool and all but it has the potential to statistically increase the brain damage levels of the general school going population.
Extraterrestrials in general but I think that there are all types out there including type 3 civilizations.
I'm an entity of a higher frequency
I don't sleep or need
to even eat or breath
my features seem
to make the bravest creatures scream
because I look like like extraterrestrial star fleet marine
who will eat your spleen
plus the fluids that I bleed are green
I traveled to the milky way with a gift
I flew right past the earth and gave it to Sith
they stayed at a dis-
-stance cause' I came in equipped
with a lightsaber blade that's the length of a ship
the gift I gave em' was a quantum computer encased in a chip
and the waves it emits
could reprogram brains in an ins-stant
but what they didn't realize, is that they would submit
and becomes my slaves if they let
me convince em' to take it, and with
their help I would claim ownership
of your galaxy
I exist in all 11 dimensions of reality
and implode your cranium when I detonate your fallacies
so who's brave enough to test me?
I could be chained and cuffed, and next be
drained of luck
with my mouth duct taped and shut
and still I'll slay the fuckin' MC
who foolishly came against me
and now his cranium's empty
you drown in the depths
of my sound and my text
you can see me in the sky, catching clouds in a net
I'm bound to impress
but I don't count on finesse
I rap like a chimpanzee poundin' his chest
I compressed six books
on to the tip of a fish hook
and simultaneously read em' all with a quick look
if you mistook
me for a member of mankind
it's because I can grind
my body up and reform it from time to time
and my
ability to craft a grand rhyme
that can short circuit a quantum computer's RAM drive
every verse can cause a landslide
cause' when I rap I use doton-no-jutsu handsigns
plus my craniums a van's size
and my reversed waveforms scan whatever I'm scanned by
This is going to be like Lil Pump vs Eminem lol.
I hope you don't mind if I take this challenge. Me, you and RM are the only rappers here so I doubt anyone else would take it anyway.
A Socialist atheist is your mortal enemy, a Capitalist liberal atheist is still not your ally but more tolerable to the Conservative Christian. They are people you merely dislike, but I am your mortal ideological enemy.
It's pretty much true though. For example if I, a Socialist lose a debate about Socialism, it's not because I'm wrong but because all the voters already had the very same opinion about Socialism to begin with. Therefore the majority is automatically biased against me and biased for my opponent's side because you are all within a relatively similar paradigm (including mainline liberals who still believe in Capitalism.) That is just one example, everyone is biased against me because I am so removed from normal ways of thinking. As a conservative Christian you probably already believe the lie that Socialism is about the state owning the means of production, and all of your favorite propagandists like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson have been reinforcing that belief for years so no matter what I say the majority will always automatically dismiss it. This is why I technically don't lose half the debate I lose, it's just that everyone is automatically against me because I'm not a yankee doodle ding dong.
I like Vinnie Paz, but RM thinks he's better than Eminem which I find ridiculous.
If you know that reviewers opinions and sale statistics are useless then why are we even having this conversation? I think it's because you have something against me because I'm not a conservative christian waggly doodle.
No, Vinnie Paz the rapper. He's pretty good, you should check him out. RM posted some raps from him in our other debates if you want to take a look.
Your vote was invalid for more than just the reason it was removed. When I provide reasons for my position and the opponent simply says "but here's a list of games that are more popular" and thus refuses to make an actual argument, and then you believe their assertion that I am conceding when they are in fact conceding by refusing to stick to actual arguments, then you don't deserve a say in who wins this debate.
What made you think I was going to read that? From only reading the first sentence I could tell were it was going. Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is proof that you are actually the one conceding right now. You just indirectly admitted that you don't have any arguments and only appeals to popularity and authority.
I didn't claim I was a genius you sophistic dingle berry. The fact is the real world is cruel and merciless to anyone who doesn't fall into either the "wolf" or the "sheep" category.
Where are your facts? Selling well does not make something better. You have to explain why it's better and not just fall back on some arbitrary standard of how many people decided to buy it based on their subjective preference.
It's so obvious that sales/popularity don't equate to quality that the very fact I need to explain it proves my point that if a genius where to join this site, they would "lose" even more often than me because "winning" means you have appealed and gained the favor of a hoard of witless troglodytes.
None of your facts are based on facts though, only other peoples opinions.
I suspect the opposite of what you say is true. I don't appeal to the majority's sensibilities because I am not one of the common rabble, thus I always "lose" when it's left up to majority opinion.
Focusing on sales is an appeal to popularity. Critical consensus is an appeal to authority. Only examining the actual games and making your own arguments holds any weight.
I already told you I won't debate someone who appeals to popularity and uses sales as their sole argument. As far as winning is concerned, I'm beginning to think that being wrong is a requirement for "winning" 9/10 times. If I were to intentionally promote the exact opposite of the truth then I would "win" by majority vote much more often.
Your arguments are non-existent, you merely appeal to popularity without addressing anything of substance. You literally didn't make a single point this whole time.