This was i think the first debate i started so i thought that could also be seen here. But can be read either way. His arguments are religious and hopping that his prophet will recognize his individual effort(or the rare good believers). But that is not the topic.
Are you kidding? I literally see no argument from you in this one. If you are talking about the other debate in which i voted for your opponent then yes, i totally understand what argument you wanted to make there. You just made it look like a kid that starts to explain a law of physics that he saw on youtube and only gets the name right and not the explanation. I highly doubt you actually understood what you wanted to say, considering how incoherent your arguments are... .
Thanks! I wish you took on this debate!
Just something quick. America is called america not georgewashingtonia. Where as christianity claims to be the religion which follows christ even bearing his name and the cross symbol. Anyways, thanks for reading my arguments.
Before you accepted the debate you could have easily seen the description which said "christianity" not "christians". And i clearly wrote christianity as a whole and all branches. I dont understand why you would make such a dishonest argument just to get a vote. And definitions are very important i agree. But for kindergarten. When you are learning how to talk. Grown ups communicate in a common language with clear definitions. Christianity is a religion. Not people. People can be christian. If you speak another form of english which is does not go by the dictionary then i apologize.
"It is not possible to culturally appropriate catholicism.
The system as a whole is an amalgamation of every form of cultural plagiarism at its final form."
Calling Catholicism ‘cultural plagiarism’ is either ignorant or hateful. It didn’t steal culture, it built culture. You don’t get millenials of art, philosophy, music, and architecture by copying (without mentioning that there was/is nothing even similar). Catholicism shaped Western civilization more than any other institution. But maybe let's leave this to a future debate.
Ps: Surprising statement from someone who keeps baldwin as a pfp.
I am sure jesus would appreciate you trying but let's not shift the topic.
The debate isn’t “Would Jesus appreciate a few sincere believers?”- it’s "Would Jesus recognize Christianity today as his own movement?"
I asked: Does Christianity reflect Jesus' life and teachings?
You answered: Christians try their best, and Jesus will understand.
Hopeful, but irrelevant to our main thesis.
We are arguing if jesus would accept christianity as the religion which takes after him (follows his life and teachings). I thought it would be clear from the topic. I guess ill have to add this in the description.
"Lucy star fire cannot accept, nor any affiliates associated with this individual that has created multiple profiles, otherwise it will be an automatic forfeit on the topic from this individual, serious debates only"
i just had a debate with that user and sent him a friend request as it was my first debate here. Do not think that i am affiliated with him in any way.
Ok so by your logic, the statement "spiderman exists and this statement is true" is a true statement and spiderman exists because the statement itself is claiming to be true, just like your statement was. I dont think so.
The meow god statement's truth value is indeterminate. It is not true or false objectively. You state that it is false implying that meow god does not exist, but you can never say for certain that something does not exist making that statement-objectively- neither true or false. But lets not ramble too much. there is a clear definition for the word "true" and you did not seem to consider it before taking your stance related to that statement.
"Meow God exists and this whole statement is false." "Do I summon Meow God?"
What do you even mean. why would you summon meow god based on this statement? my analogy was this: just because a statement claims to be true does not mean it is. "spiderman is real" is implying that something exists, it is not proven that spiderman exists therefore this statement cannot be true or false. "this statement is true" implies that the statement holds a truth value about wether the statement itself is true. but true about what? about wether it is true? how do you determine wether a person who says "i am truthful" is actually truthful just based on what he said? that statement holds no truth or lie. it is just an empty grammatically correct sentence, holding no external or inherent meaning.
This was i think the first debate i started so i thought that could also be seen here. But can be read either way. His arguments are religious and hopping that his prophet will recognize his individual effort(or the rare good believers). But that is not the topic.
I ain't reading all that.
Are you kidding? I literally see no argument from you in this one. If you are talking about the other debate in which i voted for your opponent then yes, i totally understand what argument you wanted to make there. You just made it look like a kid that starts to explain a law of physics that he saw on youtube and only gets the name right and not the explanation. I highly doubt you actually understood what you wanted to say, considering how incoherent your arguments are... .
And i was talking about the description that shows under the title before you open the debate.
Thanks! I wish you took on this debate!
Just something quick. America is called america not georgewashingtonia. Where as christianity claims to be the religion which follows christ even bearing his name and the cross symbol. Anyways, thanks for reading my arguments.
Before you accepted the debate you could have easily seen the description which said "christianity" not "christians". And i clearly wrote christianity as a whole and all branches. I dont understand why you would make such a dishonest argument just to get a vote. And definitions are very important i agree. But for kindergarten. When you are learning how to talk. Grown ups communicate in a common language with clear definitions. Christianity is a religion. Not people. People can be christian. If you speak another form of english which is does not go by the dictionary then i apologize.
"It is not possible to culturally appropriate catholicism.
The system as a whole is an amalgamation of every form of cultural plagiarism at its final form."
Calling Catholicism ‘cultural plagiarism’ is either ignorant or hateful. It didn’t steal culture, it built culture. You don’t get millenials of art, philosophy, music, and architecture by copying (without mentioning that there was/is nothing even similar). Catholicism shaped Western civilization more than any other institution. But maybe let's leave this to a future debate.
Ps: Surprising statement from someone who keeps baldwin as a pfp.
My apologies for grammatic mistakes.
I am sure jesus would appreciate you trying but let's not shift the topic.
The debate isn’t “Would Jesus appreciate a few sincere believers?”- it’s "Would Jesus recognize Christianity today as his own movement?"
I asked: Does Christianity reflect Jesus' life and teachings?
You answered: Christians try their best, and Jesus will understand.
Hopeful, but irrelevant to our main thesis.
We are arguing if jesus would accept christianity as the religion which takes after him (follows his life and teachings). I thought it would be clear from the topic. I guess ill have to add this in the description.
Are you joking?
If you want me to define jesus or christianity then you might as well be off this platform mate.
What an absurd topic. And how do you prevent your child's homosexuality mr.21pilots? Funniest thing i have read in a while.
Yes. By every aspect. Even though they both are poor and undeveloped.
So you propose a very nonsense topic and want someone else to defend it? Or do you suspect it to be true and want someone to convince you?
"Lucy star fire cannot accept, nor any affiliates associated with this individual that has created multiple profiles, otherwise it will be an automatic forfeit on the topic from this individual, serious debates only"
i just had a debate with that user and sent him a friend request as it was my first debate here. Do not think that i am affiliated with him in any way.
Ok so by your logic, the statement "spiderman exists and this statement is true" is a true statement and spiderman exists because the statement itself is claiming to be true, just like your statement was. I dont think so.
The meow god statement's truth value is indeterminate. It is not true or false objectively. You state that it is false implying that meow god does not exist, but you can never say for certain that something does not exist making that statement-objectively- neither true or false. But lets not ramble too much. there is a clear definition for the word "true" and you did not seem to consider it before taking your stance related to that statement.
"Meow God exists and this whole statement is false." "Do I summon Meow God?"
What do you even mean. why would you summon meow god based on this statement? my analogy was this: just because a statement claims to be true does not mean it is. "spiderman is real" is implying that something exists, it is not proven that spiderman exists therefore this statement cannot be true or false. "this statement is true" implies that the statement holds a truth value about wether the statement itself is true. but true about what? about wether it is true? how do you determine wether a person who says "i am truthful" is actually truthful just based on what he said? that statement holds no truth or lie. it is just an empty grammatically correct sentence, holding no external or inherent meaning.