I was actually going to concede this one anyway because your comment sunk in and changed my mind on the subject. But I guess now I'll have to concede for an unrelated reason. Sadness.
The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy. GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it. In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
Let's just be clear on this. I am not the one who started with the accusations. If you don't want to receive, then you shouldn't give. It's that simple. I'll gladly end this conversation for the sake of your personal liberties, but just know that your hands are not clean in all of this.
It's not that I'm not trying to understand you, it's just that we flatly disagree. When it comes down to it, you think that your contingencies were productive to the debate and I don't. You think that debates are merely competitive and I don't. One could say that beating each other to death with toddler bodies is competitive and the context doesn't matter. But once you walk out of that sporting ring, you still have to go to sleep at night contending with the fact of what you did in the ring. If you think being in a debate ring suspends reality for you, I assure you that you are sadly mistaken.
I accuse you have being obtuse because I believe it. I am willing to concede things that I think are true even in a debate where it would lose me the debate. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything that you say when you are the type of person to disagree with a person's entire debate arguments wholesale. If you were arguing honestly, then there would have been at least a few points that I made that you could have agreed with, but it's just a game to you. You've admitted as much.
I'm going to throw you a bone though, because I sincerely like to see people improve even when they seem hopeless. If you want an example of what an objective debater looks like. Go look at Dustandashes. You could learn a thing or two from him. I know I have.
I understand that, but it's not the same. I can enter a debate as an industrialist and do it in a way that is still in line with my beliefs. Maybe I advocate for soft industrialism. Now if you want to just full on play devil's advocate, then that's your prerogative obviously. On a practical level, I would suggest you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate, but that's just my opinion.
The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
If someone because a theist because I lied, I would hold myself morally responsible for that. Now they might because a theist because of my atheism. But at least in that case I took every action possible to try and make that not happen and I certainly didn't roll the dice on it like you are.
I don't know what a background of competitive debate would look like exactly, so I can't say for sure. But I would assume that I do not. Does this make me wrong? I might not have the stomach for dishonestly spitting out rhetoric, but I have a long history of being honest and that's all I care about. I think honesty would probably be my one and only true axiom, since I generally don't accept axioms. Is it a bias on my part? Maybe... Probably. But there's not much I can do about that since I wholeheartedly believe that honesty is important.
If I have to lie to win a debate, then in my mind, I didn't win that debate.
To me, winning a debate is arguing for that which you believe and being good enough at it to convince other people. If I can only convince people of things by lying, then I'm nothing more than a grifter. I would consider that immoral because one of my lies might spread a false belief and that is unacceptable to me.
Here's the way I see it. People believe things for reasons. If they believe it wholeheartedly, especially if it's related to morals. Then they will act according to those beliefs.
If I'm against something because I think it's morally wrong and then I go and play devil's advocate in a debate without any regard for my true position, then I'm being dishonest. It's that simple for me. Because to advocate for something that you think morally wrong is a life issue. Is it a debate issue? No, but who cares about debating if there's no knowledge seeking behind it. If I wanted to just argue and score points, I would just go to youtube or reddit and ream people there.
That's funny because I was wondering myself if this would count as a troll debate or not. Good to know. I thought it seemed serious at first but it's hard to call.
That's nonsense. If you're advocating for something that you don't believe in, then you're not being honest. If you want to lie to yourself and say it is honest, then be my guest. But just know that you're deluding yourself.
Okay, fairness is an adjective that I'm applying to the word liberty. I'm not saying they're the exact same thing. I'm saying that the liberty has to be fair. My liberty ends where yours begins. However, in the case of a debate, there is no way for my liberty of making an argument to trump yours, so we'd both and full liberty and it would be fair because we both have it. When you make a contingency that is tailor made for your argument, that is neither fair nor liberal.
Thanks for the vote. I still don't think I challenged any rules of the debate. That was just a strawman that bsh1 made of me. I pretty much knew I was going to lose the debate going in. I'll tell you what I've told you in the past. If you assume that my goal was to win the debate, then yes I lost. But that is rarely my goal except maybe in rap battles or debates that I don't care about personally.
But in this case, I take logic seriously as I think the lack of it causes a lot of problems in society and my real goal is to get people to think about their axioms. It always has been. It's the reason I started debating in the first place.
If I have to lose 1,000 debates and become a joke to the community, then so be it. None of that matters to me. If I can teach even one person to justify their own claims then I've done my job (I think I'm at about 3 people now, but who knows if any of that stuck with them. [fyi none of those people are on this website, at least I think they're not])
I didn't say it was. I said it was fairness. My point is that if I have to lie about my position to win a debate, then the debate is not fair. If I honestly believe my argument to be true, then I should be able to present it the way that I believe it. If I am wrong, then it's for the voters to decide. Not my opponent.
That wouldn't demonstrate anything. That would just demonstrate that people want to vote for you. If your opponent is not allowed to argue in the way that they find most honest, then the debate is not fair. The only fair debate is one where people are allowed to make their arguments with full liberty. Anything less than that would be arbitrary restrictions.
I could be wrong about this, but I think you have to concede within the debate or the voters are not allowed to count it. So until you do that, your opponent is forced to act as if the debate is still on.
My problem wasn't that you were pointing out what you considered to be rule violations. My problem was that I made it clear after your initial accusation that I was not challenging your resolution assumptions.
I made it clear in my opening statement that my comments about your resolution were for clarification of terms. It was a genuine effort to understand your topic as well as possible before moving forward. When I do this with other debaters. They usually just clarify and then move on. But not you, you decided to make a show out of it and if you think that my accusations of your are unfair, then all I have to say is "if the shoe fits"
If you were being an honest debater, then when I initially told you that I was not challenging your topic assumptions, then you should have took that at face value and moved on into the next subject. But instead, you kept repeating ad infinitum that I was exhibiting poor conduct when I wasn't. I don't care what you're intentions were. The road to ruin was built on the best of those right? I only care about your actions. Your actions have exhibited bad faith arguing.
I would suggest that if you do indeed care about honest competition, then maybe you should reconsider the way you debate. Because everything that you did was framed toward giving you a winning advantage.
You using the Description bar as a tool the way you did basically gave you an extra round.
You saying that the person in the last round can't make new arguments gives you an extra round.
There is nothing fair about your competitions. You're the guy who challenges someone to chess and then says they have to pull the your queen off the board to make it fair, but you, the instigator, still get to keep your queen.
There's no forfeit button, if you feel dishonest arguing, then you can either mention in the debate that you're playing the devil's advocate or you can concede via text. I tend to concede if I change my mind mid debate. Although it's rare for me because I'm so stubborn.
I think the biggest critique of pascal's wager is given by Matt Dillahunty. He cuts right past the probability end of it and just points out that no God is going to let you in heaven simply because you pretend to believe for the sake of getting into heaven. Put simply, religion is an all or nothing thing. You have to believe it whole heartedly or not at all.
My science teacher presented pascal's wager to me in Junior high and I found it convincing until after I became an atheist. I think a lot of it comes down to one's state of mind.
Thanks for the vote. It's not that I never wanted to discuss the topic. My opponent would never let me get that far. I merely wasn't going to throw away a whole sale truth about the is/ought problem just to have the discussion. Like I said before, if my opponent had been honest and admitted the is/ought problem as every philosopher in history since hume has admitted, then we could have talk about it pragmatically. But instead, my opponent wanted to grandstand and make a shit show over the resolution instead of conceding a reasonable point and moving on in the debate.
In fact. At my level of play, there is no strategy that my opponent could ever adopt that I haven't seen before. I have spent years studying different openings and studying how to judge an opening that I've never seen before using the tactical fundamentals of a game. The most they could do is deviate from a line that I already know. (I know all of the starting lines) at which point, I only have to calculate the deviation. Now if my opponent was magnus Carlson. Then this deviation might destroy me from lack of knowledge. But a gambler doing it with no knowledge of chess fundamentals is just going to be entering into a sideline that is weak and I would crush it with ease.
Even if the gambler did luck out and pick a good philosophy. (I'm granting a lot of allowances by saying this because, as an experienced chess player myself, I know for a fact that no person can win against a competitive chess player simply by adopting one idea. this is a fact.) The thing you don't understand is that the experienced chess player would see the strategy after the first game and figure out how to beat it with ease. so the gambler would only win maybe 1 game off of this at the most. But like I said. I'm making a lot of allowances for this because chess in not a game that you can win simply by adopting a random philosophy. It requires knowing dozens of fundamentals and memorizing strings of moves. There's no shortcuts.
Your example is unrealistic. There is no way to gamble in chess. It's a perfect information game. If the gambler does win. It's not because he gambled, it's because he had a better chess strategy.
If we're assuming that the gambler doesn't have as much chess knowledge as the chess player, then the chess player would win most, if not all of the games.
You say you were wiling to have a discussion, but this is just hog wash. You denied literally everything I said (including the Is/ought problem which is the second most widely accepted philosophical position in history second only to "I think, therefore I am"). While I admitted everything in your topic as being true with the exception of one thing that was categorically false.
Which one of use was REALLY trying to have a discussion here? I'm on record conceding truths in debates and even entire debates when I'm disproven. Don't you dare insult me by saying you try to have honest discussions. That diminishes the wounds that I suffer by wearing my beliefs as a badge instead of a mask.
My argument was that ought doesn't exist. How is that any different. You're just picking a different word in the topic than me. This is stupid. I don't know where you guys came to the conclusion that making caveat's in the description about how the opponent argues was a good thing. The description is for presenting the instigator's definition and round structure. It is not an R0 statement as you try to use it.
Okay, you think debates are about competition. That's fine for you. I do this for knowledge. If I merely wanted competition out of this, I'd go play chase or a MOBA.
If you really think your description's are not get out of jail free cards, then something is wrong here. Either you don't understand the implications of your caveats or you don't care and you think they're justified.
If I post a rebuttal to your topic (as is my job as a debater) and you respond by saying I lose for that, then you're not debating honestly. I didn't challenge your definitions nor did I challenge any assumptions. Saying your position on the topic is wrong (once again, as is my job as a debater) is not challenging the assumptions of your position. Furthermore, do you not understand that telling my I can't challenge your assumptions is dishonest? No knowledge should be sacred. If your belief was true, then there shouldn't be any point that I could make that would ruin things for you. You would have been able to routinely rebut me without having to resort to accusing me of bad conduct.
But to be honest, I don't think you care all that much. As you said, you do this for competition, you only care about winning and that means that we're not on the same people
When taken to it's logical conclusion, pascal's wager suggest that atheism is the best bet. Also, it's a category error to compare a gamble to a logical proposition. It's like comparing the world's best Yahtzee player to the world's best chess player. you can't say one is better than the other unless they're playing in the same category.
whatever god belief tenant that the atheist abides by. I can't speak for all of them as they all word it differently. They could also add infinitely more arbitrary tenants at their own discretion if they choose since there is no strict limitation on what you can make a religion.
I'm sincerely sorry that I couldn't address the end of your R2. I'll try to come back to it in the next round. So don't assume I'm not going to address it.
Man. I use to think you were being hyperbolic. But Ramshutu really is out to get you isn't he? What did you do to him to cause him to dedicate his life to downvoting you? Is that why he votes? Did he lose a debate to you and think "never again"
You might be able to argue that my argument wasn't satisfying to you. However, you can't argue that I made less of an argument than my opponent. I had more data. I explained everything with more detail. Everything you're saying is a lie. Like I said, you're proving my point that your standard is vacuous.
As for the circle thing, I always chuckle when people make this accusation. It takes two people to form a circular argument Ramshutu. Remember that.
I've said my piece. I never expected to convince you. I just want to shine a spotlight on a piece of illogic that I think you have.
"Racial decent is an illusion. There is no Jewish race from a genetic point of view and judging them by location is nationalism.
Furthermore, the people you're referring to are not Jews, but rather Hebrews, which is a very broad and ill defined term.
At best, we could say that people from certain tribes at a certain time were Hebrews. As for Judaism, The only way to be a Jew is by taking on Judaism either literally or at least culturally, either way, you would then be unable to be Christian. "
"Ahh, definition games. That will not meet your burden the topic is "to be" which means that definition is not enough.
Identifying as something is not the same as being something."
"My point is that personal identities are not being. I could identify as a hunk of cheese or a dog or a cat or a boat or a chair, etc, etc.
That doesn't actually cause me "to be" any of those things.
The state of being is directly cause by a thing's ontology.
So I'm a chair because I meet an objective standard (I am a thing that can objectively be sat upon by humans and I meet certain special requirements that are generally found in chairs) No matter how much I call myself a chair, I cannot meet this objective standards.
It's the same for being Jewish or Christian.
There is no objective standard for being an ethnic or cultural Jew. Races are arbitrary. There is no "jewish gene" that can objectively make someone jewish. To be jewish. "
Everything I just said a moment ago is explicitly mentioned in these arguments. Since you're to blind to turn the tab over and see them, I brought them to you. If you want to vote on vacuous definitions, that's your prerogative, but logically it makes you about as rational as a blind faith theist.
You concede
I was actually going to concede this one anyway because your comment sunk in and changed my mind on the subject. But I guess now I'll have to concede for an unrelated reason. Sadness.
I concede
Silly me, I thought I had posted this already. My bad. Anyway, I concede due to unrelated reasons. good debate.
Well then you sir, have a religion that is not clouding your mind, in my humble opinion.
The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy. GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it. In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
Let's just be clear on this. I am not the one who started with the accusations. If you don't want to receive, then you shouldn't give. It's that simple. I'll gladly end this conversation for the sake of your personal liberties, but just know that your hands are not clean in all of this.
It's not that I'm not trying to understand you, it's just that we flatly disagree. When it comes down to it, you think that your contingencies were productive to the debate and I don't. You think that debates are merely competitive and I don't. One could say that beating each other to death with toddler bodies is competitive and the context doesn't matter. But once you walk out of that sporting ring, you still have to go to sleep at night contending with the fact of what you did in the ring. If you think being in a debate ring suspends reality for you, I assure you that you are sadly mistaken.
I accuse you have being obtuse because I believe it. I am willing to concede things that I think are true even in a debate where it would lose me the debate. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything that you say when you are the type of person to disagree with a person's entire debate arguments wholesale. If you were arguing honestly, then there would have been at least a few points that I made that you could have agreed with, but it's just a game to you. You've admitted as much.
I'm going to throw you a bone though, because I sincerely like to see people improve even when they seem hopeless. If you want an example of what an objective debater looks like. Go look at Dustandashes. You could learn a thing or two from him. I know I have.
I understand that, but it's not the same. I can enter a debate as an industrialist and do it in a way that is still in line with my beliefs. Maybe I advocate for soft industrialism. Now if you want to just full on play devil's advocate, then that's your prerogative obviously. On a practical level, I would suggest you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate, but that's just my opinion.
The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
If someone because a theist because I lied, I would hold myself morally responsible for that. Now they might because a theist because of my atheism. But at least in that case I took every action possible to try and make that not happen and I certainly didn't roll the dice on it like you are.
I don't know what a background of competitive debate would look like exactly, so I can't say for sure. But I would assume that I do not. Does this make me wrong? I might not have the stomach for dishonestly spitting out rhetoric, but I have a long history of being honest and that's all I care about. I think honesty would probably be my one and only true axiom, since I generally don't accept axioms. Is it a bias on my part? Maybe... Probably. But there's not much I can do about that since I wholeheartedly believe that honesty is important.
If I have to lie to win a debate, then in my mind, I didn't win that debate.
To me, winning a debate is arguing for that which you believe and being good enough at it to convince other people. If I can only convince people of things by lying, then I'm nothing more than a grifter. I would consider that immoral because one of my lies might spread a false belief and that is unacceptable to me.
Here's the way I see it. People believe things for reasons. If they believe it wholeheartedly, especially if it's related to morals. Then they will act according to those beliefs.
If I'm against something because I think it's morally wrong and then I go and play devil's advocate in a debate without any regard for my true position, then I'm being dishonest. It's that simple for me. Because to advocate for something that you think morally wrong is a life issue. Is it a debate issue? No, but who cares about debating if there's no knowledge seeking behind it. If I wanted to just argue and score points, I would just go to youtube or reddit and ream people there.
That's funny because I was wondering myself if this would count as a troll debate or not. Good to know. I thought it seemed serious at first but it's hard to call.
That's nonsense. If you're advocating for something that you don't believe in, then you're not being honest. If you want to lie to yourself and say it is honest, then be my guest. But just know that you're deluding yourself.
Okay, fairness is an adjective that I'm applying to the word liberty. I'm not saying they're the exact same thing. I'm saying that the liberty has to be fair. My liberty ends where yours begins. However, in the case of a debate, there is no way for my liberty of making an argument to trump yours, so we'd both and full liberty and it would be fair because we both have it. When you make a contingency that is tailor made for your argument, that is neither fair nor liberal.
Thanks for the vote. I still don't think I challenged any rules of the debate. That was just a strawman that bsh1 made of me. I pretty much knew I was going to lose the debate going in. I'll tell you what I've told you in the past. If you assume that my goal was to win the debate, then yes I lost. But that is rarely my goal except maybe in rap battles or debates that I don't care about personally.
But in this case, I take logic seriously as I think the lack of it causes a lot of problems in society and my real goal is to get people to think about their axioms. It always has been. It's the reason I started debating in the first place.
If I have to lose 1,000 debates and become a joke to the community, then so be it. None of that matters to me. If I can teach even one person to justify their own claims then I've done my job (I think I'm at about 3 people now, but who knows if any of that stuck with them. [fyi none of those people are on this website, at least I think they're not])
If there ever was an objective vote in this universe, that was it.
I didn't say it was. I said it was fairness. My point is that if I have to lie about my position to win a debate, then the debate is not fair. If I honestly believe my argument to be true, then I should be able to present it the way that I believe it. If I am wrong, then it's for the voters to decide. Not my opponent.
That wouldn't demonstrate anything. That would just demonstrate that people want to vote for you. If your opponent is not allowed to argue in the way that they find most honest, then the debate is not fair. The only fair debate is one where people are allowed to make their arguments with full liberty. Anything less than that would be arbitrary restrictions.
I could be wrong about this, but I think you have to concede within the debate or the voters are not allowed to count it. So until you do that, your opponent is forced to act as if the debate is still on.
That's not necessarily true. It could be a pseudo semantic argument.
I think con's side would be more likely to have a no true Scotsman in it actually. Although neither side need participate in this fallacy to argue.
My problem wasn't that you were pointing out what you considered to be rule violations. My problem was that I made it clear after your initial accusation that I was not challenging your resolution assumptions.
I made it clear in my opening statement that my comments about your resolution were for clarification of terms. It was a genuine effort to understand your topic as well as possible before moving forward. When I do this with other debaters. They usually just clarify and then move on. But not you, you decided to make a show out of it and if you think that my accusations of your are unfair, then all I have to say is "if the shoe fits"
If you were being an honest debater, then when I initially told you that I was not challenging your topic assumptions, then you should have took that at face value and moved on into the next subject. But instead, you kept repeating ad infinitum that I was exhibiting poor conduct when I wasn't. I don't care what you're intentions were. The road to ruin was built on the best of those right? I only care about your actions. Your actions have exhibited bad faith arguing.
I would suggest that if you do indeed care about honest competition, then maybe you should reconsider the way you debate. Because everything that you did was framed toward giving you a winning advantage.
You using the Description bar as a tool the way you did basically gave you an extra round.
You saying that the person in the last round can't make new arguments gives you an extra round.
There is nothing fair about your competitions. You're the guy who challenges someone to chess and then says they have to pull the your queen off the board to make it fair, but you, the instigator, still get to keep your queen.
I'm assuming that they'll have cyborgs for children?
I recuse myself from voting since I have a horse in this race.
Citation for what?
There's no forfeit button, if you feel dishonest arguing, then you can either mention in the debate that you're playing the devil's advocate or you can concede via text. I tend to concede if I change my mind mid debate. Although it's rare for me because I'm so stubborn.
I think the biggest critique of pascal's wager is given by Matt Dillahunty. He cuts right past the probability end of it and just points out that no God is going to let you in heaven simply because you pretend to believe for the sake of getting into heaven. Put simply, religion is an all or nothing thing. You have to believe it whole heartedly or not at all.
My science teacher presented pascal's wager to me in Junior high and I found it convincing until after I became an atheist. I think a lot of it comes down to one's state of mind.
Thanks for the vote. It's not that I never wanted to discuss the topic. My opponent would never let me get that far. I merely wasn't going to throw away a whole sale truth about the is/ought problem just to have the discussion. Like I said before, if my opponent had been honest and admitted the is/ought problem as every philosopher in history since hume has admitted, then we could have talk about it pragmatically. But instead, my opponent wanted to grandstand and make a shit show over the resolution instead of conceding a reasonable point and moving on in the debate.
In fact. At my level of play, there is no strategy that my opponent could ever adopt that I haven't seen before. I have spent years studying different openings and studying how to judge an opening that I've never seen before using the tactical fundamentals of a game. The most they could do is deviate from a line that I already know. (I know all of the starting lines) at which point, I only have to calculate the deviation. Now if my opponent was magnus Carlson. Then this deviation might destroy me from lack of knowledge. But a gambler doing it with no knowledge of chess fundamentals is just going to be entering into a sideline that is weak and I would crush it with ease.
Even if the gambler did luck out and pick a good philosophy. (I'm granting a lot of allowances by saying this because, as an experienced chess player myself, I know for a fact that no person can win against a competitive chess player simply by adopting one idea. this is a fact.) The thing you don't understand is that the experienced chess player would see the strategy after the first game and figure out how to beat it with ease. so the gambler would only win maybe 1 game off of this at the most. But like I said. I'm making a lot of allowances for this because chess in not a game that you can win simply by adopting a random philosophy. It requires knowing dozens of fundamentals and memorizing strings of moves. There's no shortcuts.
Your example is unrealistic. There is no way to gamble in chess. It's a perfect information game. If the gambler does win. It's not because he gambled, it's because he had a better chess strategy.
If we're assuming that the gambler doesn't have as much chess knowledge as the chess player, then the chess player would win most, if not all of the games.
You say you were wiling to have a discussion, but this is just hog wash. You denied literally everything I said (including the Is/ought problem which is the second most widely accepted philosophical position in history second only to "I think, therefore I am"). While I admitted everything in your topic as being true with the exception of one thing that was categorically false.
Which one of use was REALLY trying to have a discussion here? I'm on record conceding truths in debates and even entire debates when I'm disproven. Don't you dare insult me by saying you try to have honest discussions. That diminishes the wounds that I suffer by wearing my beliefs as a badge instead of a mask.
My argument was that ought doesn't exist. How is that any different. You're just picking a different word in the topic than me. This is stupid. I don't know where you guys came to the conclusion that making caveat's in the description about how the opponent argues was a good thing. The description is for presenting the instigator's definition and round structure. It is not an R0 statement as you try to use it.
Okay, you think debates are about competition. That's fine for you. I do this for knowledge. If I merely wanted competition out of this, I'd go play chase or a MOBA.
If you really think your description's are not get out of jail free cards, then something is wrong here. Either you don't understand the implications of your caveats or you don't care and you think they're justified.
If I post a rebuttal to your topic (as is my job as a debater) and you respond by saying I lose for that, then you're not debating honestly. I didn't challenge your definitions nor did I challenge any assumptions. Saying your position on the topic is wrong (once again, as is my job as a debater) is not challenging the assumptions of your position. Furthermore, do you not understand that telling my I can't challenge your assumptions is dishonest? No knowledge should be sacred. If your belief was true, then there shouldn't be any point that I could make that would ruin things for you. You would have been able to routinely rebut me without having to resort to accusing me of bad conduct.
But to be honest, I don't think you care all that much. As you said, you do this for competition, you only care about winning and that means that we're not on the same people
When taken to it's logical conclusion, pascal's wager suggest that atheism is the best bet. Also, it's a category error to compare a gamble to a logical proposition. It's like comparing the world's best Yahtzee player to the world's best chess player. you can't say one is better than the other unless they're playing in the same category.
I have to look that one up because I remember that there is a distinction about moral relativism that I don't like. But I'll have to look it up.
No
whatever god belief tenant that the atheist abides by. I can't speak for all of them as they all word it differently. They could also add infinitely more arbitrary tenants at their own discretion if they choose since there is no strict limitation on what you can make a religion.
Well, technically, one could theoretically take the one tenant of atheism and expand it into a religion. Not sure what that would look like.
Nice vote.
I did in the description
possibly
"You might find I'm being as illogical as you think I am."
Meant to say "I'm not being"
I'm sincerely sorry that I couldn't address the end of your R2. I'll try to come back to it in the next round. So don't assume I'm not going to address it.
Epic typo at the end of my R2. You'll notice it right away. I apologize in advance for the finger slip.
I don't care and neither does debart, lol. Go nuts. This is a troll debate. Release your inner troll!!
holy crap, you did say stalin.
If he goes alone. Then yes.
Man, I thought your babies as currency debate was sleezy!! But fine tuning. That's bottom of the barrel = D
Man. I use to think you were being hyperbolic. But Ramshutu really is out to get you isn't he? What did you do to him to cause him to dedicate his life to downvoting you? Is that why he votes? Did he lose a debate to you and think "never again"
You might be able to argue that my argument wasn't satisfying to you. However, you can't argue that I made less of an argument than my opponent. I had more data. I explained everything with more detail. Everything you're saying is a lie. Like I said, you're proving my point that your standard is vacuous.
As for the circle thing, I always chuckle when people make this accusation. It takes two people to form a circular argument Ramshutu. Remember that.
I've said my piece. I never expected to convince you. I just want to shine a spotlight on a piece of illogic that I think you have.
Hogwash.
"Racial decent is an illusion. There is no Jewish race from a genetic point of view and judging them by location is nationalism.
Furthermore, the people you're referring to are not Jews, but rather Hebrews, which is a very broad and ill defined term.
At best, we could say that people from certain tribes at a certain time were Hebrews. As for Judaism, The only way to be a Jew is by taking on Judaism either literally or at least culturally, either way, you would then be unable to be Christian. "
"Ahh, definition games. That will not meet your burden the topic is "to be" which means that definition is not enough.
Identifying as something is not the same as being something."
"My point is that personal identities are not being. I could identify as a hunk of cheese or a dog or a cat or a boat or a chair, etc, etc.
That doesn't actually cause me "to be" any of those things.
The state of being is directly cause by a thing's ontology.
So I'm a chair because I meet an objective standard (I am a thing that can objectively be sat upon by humans and I meet certain special requirements that are generally found in chairs) No matter how much I call myself a chair, I cannot meet this objective standards.
It's the same for being Jewish or Christian.
There is no objective standard for being an ethnic or cultural Jew. Races are arbitrary. There is no "jewish gene" that can objectively make someone jewish. To be jewish. "
Everything I just said a moment ago is explicitly mentioned in these arguments. Since you're to blind to turn the tab over and see them, I brought them to you. If you want to vote on vacuous definitions, that's your prerogative, but logically it makes you about as rational as a blind faith theist.
I did reject his definition.
I also explained, through ontology and identity, why we should treat it as a religion.
This exemplifies the fact that I did in fact make sufficient arguments, but you simply hand waved them off.