well you believe you've debunked all of your opponent's claims. However.
A) You may only THINK you've debunked them subjectively, or
B) Even if you did, that doesn't make them true, maybe your opponent missed a point. That would mean that you debunked him in the debate, but fell short in real life where it actually counts.
The evidence is quite obvious. He has been on record specifically attributing qualities to a race. Whether or not he hates people of other races, the fact is that he is racist by definition.
That's just an appeal to authority. Truth isn't true because Harvard says so. A Truism debate would be something that has to be true based on the topic like "I like ice cream" or "rational madman's screenname is rational Madman"
Thanks, you're always welcome to accept though. I'm not picky about my opponents as long as they don't troll, which I have precedent to say that you don't.
I always humble my views on foreign affairs because I know that I can't know everything about it so easily. Intuitively, I want to say no to alliances with Israel. Thinking broadly, I would say that at the very least, we should be sanctioning them and putting general pressure for them to act with a certain degree of ethics. I think the problem is that with the idea of "not being aligned with them" being off the table, Israel has no real motivation to meet any standard of behavior. So it's one of those things where we don't necessarily have to diverge from them, but we have to be serious enough that we're willing to do so if they don't meet a certain standard.
That's really the furthest I could ever go on this subject with honesty
I agree with this. It can only be hypothetically true and even hypothetically it has flaws. If the force is truly unstoppable, then when something collides with it, it shouldn't lose any force at all because it's unstoppable, but physics suggest that it will lose some force, therefore, with enough objects, you could eventually stop it.
Now you could say it's only unstoppable until it collides with something, but that seems like a cheap technicality.
On a slight tangent from this subject. I always see people claim "this and this and this need to be taught in school" or "I never learned this or this or this" and the funny thing is. They always named off something I learned in school. It's like a stigma of sorts. There's problems with schools obviously because we see problems with drop out rates especially in public schools, but people are always so quick to stab at the curriculum and not consider other factors like funding, or methodology behind the curriculum. etc.
I personally think that private schools should be illegal. There's precedent for this and it's ultimately beneficial because it forces EVERYBODY in the community to care about the schools because they don't get to pull their kid out of the system and leave the rest to rot.
Well if you have understanding and he revealed himself to you, then why can't you define him? Since you've met God personally, you should at least know something about him. How tall is he? What color is his Hair? Does he even look human? Is he a blob? Does he speak English?
You realize the rock paradox shows why omnipotence is impossible right? The bible claims omnibenevolence. Do you deny it? You say it's beyond physics, but you're not justifying that. If you can't even give me the mechanics of it without arriving at a contradiction, then why should I believe that claim?
"If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true."
See that's where the slippery slope of belief can begin. What makes a study reliable? Because they said so? I'm not just poking at the right wingers here either. Most studies that news shows put out are complete garbage if I'm being totally honest. They're always the first draft of the study and there's not stratification and no follow ups. Maybe some of the more historically well known studies might be exception to this, but the fact that you're willing to take even a single thing they say as a fact is a problem.
well every station has their biases. But the major news channels are still the best in the pack by a wide margin. (I use that term lightly because I think news channels in general are becoming obsolete).
Well, I don't watch pundits generally, so I don't allude to their accuracy. You may be right. I was simply pointing out that them being an alternative source doesn't necessarily make them accurate.
Any opinions they express are, of course, opinions so to allude to their true value is unproductive.
If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting.
They are allowed to express a quote or recorded event as a fact in so far as that it was recorded or quoted, but opinions are just opinions and if a pundit gives an opinion, then I would think it good form to disclaim as much.
I agree. I would like to note a common equivocation that tends to happen here though. To say that something is the exception to a rule is not automatically special pleading. If there can be a third party rule introduced that justifies the exception then it's a justified special pleading. Just putting that out there. However, The third party rule must exempt everything that it applies to so some third party rules are fallacious.
For instance.
Oranges and lemons and limes are all citrus fruits.
Let's say I want a special exception where oranges count as a "sweet citrus fruit" and my justification is that it has sugar in it.
This would justify the exception but since lemons and limes also have some sugar in them, it would move the whole set into the exception and would be vacuous. so I have to change the justification for my exception to be "because it has X sugar ratio and the others don't"
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's mostly because there's not a lot of cases of justified special pleading that aren't already painfully intuitive.
Actually. Hugh Ross has a pretty decent answer to this, but he's not a young earth creationist. He fits The Bible into physics quite eloquently to the point where even an atheist like me almost has to agree with it. You should check it out sometime.
Now obviously the bible matching physics isn't enough for me to become a theist, lol.
But I'm just saying that there are good arguments out there. Young earth is definitely a hard pill to swallow and the Ken Hamms of the world are not helping the case.
I miss a lot of notifications because of the way the system is here. I usually have to manually check all my debates because I get confused when I have too many link to click on my notifications so I constantly delete it and sometimes a comment or vote slips by me if I'm busy that day.
well you believe you've debunked all of your opponent's claims. However.
A) You may only THINK you've debunked them subjectively, or
B) Even if you did, that doesn't make them true, maybe your opponent missed a point. That would mean that you debunked him in the debate, but fell short in real life where it actually counts.
The evidence is quite obvious. He has been on record specifically attributing qualities to a race. Whether or not he hates people of other races, the fact is that he is racist by definition.
That one was extremely good. I laughed hard.
it's a meme contest. Click repeatedly to experience the funny.
your final round was really funny
Use your best judgement
I meant memes. My main point was that it's subjective
The 2nd one in your R4 is basically me.
thank you, it just fit the picture so well so I had to do it.
I might just be easily pleased then, lol
dank memes
lol, indeed
the first one in your R2 made me audibly laugh
my bad, yeah, just go with the flow I guess. I done forgot what I agreed to, lol
that works too
Or you can do one, either way
Okay, I'll do some extra ones at R2
lemme know if I did it wrong
That's just an appeal to authority. Truth isn't true because Harvard says so. A Truism debate would be something that has to be true based on the topic like "I like ice cream" or "rational madman's screenname is rational Madman"
that's not true because it could be reductive
Thanks, you're always welcome to accept though. I'm not picky about my opponents as long as they don't troll, which I have precedent to say that you don't.
I'm glad you asked though, it reminds me that I need to start putting definitions in the full description.
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
I believe this claim by itself is fallacious.
so if I claim thing X and you say "Thing X is impossible to know 100%" then that claim by itself is meaningless.
But you and I both know that there is no evidence for what you're claiming. If so, could you give me a citation?
I always humble my views on foreign affairs because I know that I can't know everything about it so easily. Intuitively, I want to say no to alliances with Israel. Thinking broadly, I would say that at the very least, we should be sanctioning them and putting general pressure for them to act with a certain degree of ethics. I think the problem is that with the idea of "not being aligned with them" being off the table, Israel has no real motivation to meet any standard of behavior. So it's one of those things where we don't necessarily have to diverge from them, but we have to be serious enough that we're willing to do so if they don't meet a certain standard.
That's really the furthest I could ever go on this subject with honesty
I know we skip rounds like that on DDO. I think on this website it's not a good idea though.(voting wise) Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree with this. It can only be hypothetically true and even hypothetically it has flaws. If the force is truly unstoppable, then when something collides with it, it shouldn't lose any force at all because it's unstoppable, but physics suggest that it will lose some force, therefore, with enough objects, you could eventually stop it.
Now you could say it's only unstoppable until it collides with something, but that seems like a cheap technicality.
Man, I wish someone would accept this, lol
On a slight tangent from this subject. I always see people claim "this and this and this need to be taught in school" or "I never learned this or this or this" and the funny thing is. They always named off something I learned in school. It's like a stigma of sorts. There's problems with schools obviously because we see problems with drop out rates especially in public schools, but people are always so quick to stab at the curriculum and not consider other factors like funding, or methodology behind the curriculum. etc.
I personally think that private schools should be illegal. There's precedent for this and it's ultimately beneficial because it forces EVERYBODY in the community to care about the schools because they don't get to pull their kid out of the system and leave the rest to rot.
Unless you count a pep rally , lol
Sure, does spirit have a definition? cause none of those have ever been spotted either.
I'm watching a youtube series on skepticism so I'm feeling the depth of this debate right now, lol
good debate
Well if you have understanding and he revealed himself to you, then why can't you define him? Since you've met God personally, you should at least know something about him. How tall is he? What color is his Hair? Does he even look human? Is he a blob? Does he speak English?
How can you claim something that you can't define?
same to you.
You realize the rock paradox shows why omnipotence is impossible right? The bible claims omnibenevolence. Do you deny it? You say it's beyond physics, but you're not justifying that. If you can't even give me the mechanics of it without arriving at a contradiction, then why should I believe that claim?
I noticed you left out omnibenevolence.
So in order to say god is exempt from physics we need a justification.
What would your justification be.
If it's necessity, then I'll need you to prove the impossibility of the non existence of god.
If it's god's nature, I'll need evidence of that nature, then I'll need impossibility of these not being his nature.
etc. etc. Basically, I need the rock bottom base of the claim and then proof by contradiction.
lol. I love it.
Hey, it looks silly, but it's a good rhetorical device if you want to get a bunch of questions off the table real quick in order.
I like the questions. This should be fun. :)
"If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true."
See that's where the slippery slope of belief can begin. What makes a study reliable? Because they said so? I'm not just poking at the right wingers here either. Most studies that news shows put out are complete garbage if I'm being totally honest. They're always the first draft of the study and there's not stratification and no follow ups. Maybe some of the more historically well known studies might be exception to this, but the fact that you're willing to take even a single thing they say as a fact is a problem.
well every station has their biases. But the major news channels are still the best in the pack by a wide margin. (I use that term lightly because I think news channels in general are becoming obsolete).
Well, I don't watch pundits generally, so I don't allude to their accuracy. You may be right. I was simply pointing out that them being an alternative source doesn't necessarily make them accurate.
Any opinions they express are, of course, opinions so to allude to their true value is unproductive.
If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting.
They are allowed to express a quote or recorded event as a fact in so far as that it was recorded or quoted, but opinions are just opinions and if a pundit gives an opinion, then I would think it good form to disclaim as much.
That's as far as I'm willing to go on it.
I agree. I would like to note a common equivocation that tends to happen here though. To say that something is the exception to a rule is not automatically special pleading. If there can be a third party rule introduced that justifies the exception then it's a justified special pleading. Just putting that out there. However, The third party rule must exempt everything that it applies to so some third party rules are fallacious.
For instance.
Oranges and lemons and limes are all citrus fruits.
Let's say I want a special exception where oranges count as a "sweet citrus fruit" and my justification is that it has sugar in it.
This would justify the exception but since lemons and limes also have some sugar in them, it would move the whole set into the exception and would be vacuous. so I have to change the justification for my exception to be "because it has X sugar ratio and the others don't"
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's mostly because there's not a lot of cases of justified special pleading that aren't already painfully intuitive.
no problem
Actually. Hugh Ross has a pretty decent answer to this, but he's not a young earth creationist. He fits The Bible into physics quite eloquently to the point where even an atheist like me almost has to agree with it. You should check it out sometime.
Now obviously the bible matching physics isn't enough for me to become a theist, lol.
But I'm just saying that there are good arguments out there. Young earth is definitely a hard pill to swallow and the Ken Hamms of the world are not helping the case.
does alternative necessarily equal good or correct?
My alternative to the moon landing hoax could be a different moon landing hoax, does that make it right?
Good job brining up carbon dating. The blue star thing is new to me. I'll have to check that out.
Good job bringing up the speed of light. That's always my intuitive go to for this argument.
Planting my chair *plop*
Carrying on.
I miss a lot of notifications because of the way the system is here. I usually have to manually check all my debates because I get confused when I have too many link to click on my notifications so I constantly delete it and sometimes a comment or vote slips by me if I'm busy that day.