Woman think of pecks sexually as well. As far as I can tell, modesty is an imposition of society and there is nothing intrinsic about it. We don't see other mammals covered there sexy parts. I think that intelligence is counter to evolution and causes us to do strange things that make no sense. If someone wanted to root the argument in evolution, I would say that maybe jealously is the reason. A man is self conscious and worried that someone might woo away his mate, so he tries to desexualize here to keep the other alphas away.
I liked your answers for the most part. I'm glad you didn't skip out on questions 8-10 because I usually get dodges on those. kudos for being an honest intellectual. Good debate. You're always welcome at my floor.
What makes you think that schools don't already do this? Do you mean local penal codes? Because Federal law is definitely taught in schools and it's not an elective, it's part of history class. They just sneak it in so good that you don't realize it, lol.
If you're talking about in depth semantic bar exam law, then maybe yes?
In my current worldview, Space to me is like a vacuum of nothingness. I would picture it as being something that naturally wants to be filled because all space seems to mostly be filled with something. So maybe I could consider it a type of force. I could not even fathom what truly empty space looks like.
So here's my ultimate concession. I could probably be convinced of space existing. That's not completely off the table for me. Maybe it could be pixelated, there's theory for that already so it has precedent. the time part is definitely a no go for me so that's the key reason I reject spacetime. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that time exist because all of the evidence unequivocally points towards it being an abstract.
My type 1 existence involves holding space in reality, so only matter and energy fit into it. However, I guess I wouldn't be totally against something being type 1 if it's objectively rooted in reality. This would kind of blur the line between type 1 and type 2, but I don't really start to worry until people start trying to stick type 3 and 4 into type 1. That's where I start finger wagging. So I wouldn't be against that per se since it would still give you good logic.
Right, so I would ask what specifically is bending light? Is it space? or gravity? or friction? or physical interactions.
see when they say universe is expanding. All that seems to mean to me is that objects in space are expanding. I get what you mean. This is just always the point I get hung up on. I just don't see how there needs to be a physical thing called "space" that accounts for these interactions because they all just sound like events to me. Sorry if I'm being obtuse about it, lol. I'm not trying to be. It's just there's certain things that I believe that I cannot make myself unbelieve. It's not that I can't change my mind. but there's some thing that hangs me on that belief and in order to eschew it, I have to be able to see why my hang up is not justified. I think out of all of the abstracts, space is the best candidate for not actually being an abstract. So I'll give you that.
To me, that sounds like motion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm skeptical as to if there actually is "space" between things. Most of the gaps between us is filled with neutrinos just flying right through our body.
To me, what makes up "space" is define by the particles we see. when I see expansion, that just appears as particle interactions. That's always been my biggest problem with it is that space appears to only exist because things are filling it. So how do I know it's not just the result of particle interactions creating the illusion of space?
Athias. I probably shouldn't help you since you're going to vote against me, but in the spirit of fairness. All you need to do is highlight each main point and why it did or did not contribute to your decision then you have to weigh the arguments and state your reason for picking a certain side.
For sources, you have to specifically cite at least one source. You can't appeal to quantity, not saying you did, just stating that for measure. You have to explain why you think the sources impacted the debate.
For conduct, there has to be at least 1 forfeit round or you need to cite specific cases of conduct and why you think they're excessive.
I don't usually vote grammar, but I"m guessing it's along the same lings as sources and conduct.
You can put "tied in all others" when you don't award points and you don't have to explain. However, when you tie and argument point, you still have to explain it.
Hopefully this will help you vote better against me, lol. ;)
Okay, but you literally said that in your debate so why do you need to keep repeating it. it's a voter appeal. This is why I blocked you on DDO because you take this too personally and let it spill out into the comments. Can you just let the debate resolve itself please? This makes arguing against you no fun.
Telling you to stop harassing me for my vote is not an ad hominem attack. You were being unreasonable and I don't need to explain my vote because I wrote a giant paragraph in my vote that tells you everything you need to know. You're just flaming and being a troll and disrespectful. You weren't just interrogating my ideas, you were telling me my vote was wrong which is bad form on your part. The difference between what I did is that I told you I respected your vote and addressed something separate from the topic that I wanted to know about your methodology. Never did I tell you your vote was wrong or make any of the accusations that you've made about me.
right. so can you grab me a piece of space and hand it to me? Space is just what physical things occupy. There's even evidence to show that space isn't what we think it is because particles can ignore distance. So it's not a thing because you can't even have space without at least 2 objects to judge it and you can't have time without at least 3 objects. So how do they exist if viewing them is contingent upon particles?
It's not because the light is ACTUALLY bent. I'm not perceiving the light wrong. The light is just coming in at a strange angle. The problem here is that you think we're seeing the spoon. we're not. We're seeing the light that comes from the spoon which makes a mold of it. However, it doesn't matter because we know it's the light and we adjust our brains for it by consciously adjusting how we treat the spoon.
good I found it. This is the comment that Con mentioned saying I flamed him for voting. Everyone can just judge for themselves if I acted the same as him.
"I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
Once again, I appreciate the vote.
I believe the more voters, the better. "
Man, you repeat your words too much, lol. That's at least the third time you've said herbivore. I guess it makes sense, you kind of blew all your material rapping me.
poor conduct? I'm not even in a debate dude! What are you talking about? When I commented to you, the first thing I said was "I respect you vote" and my question was concerning why you disbelieved a certain type of evidence, but did I not specifically say I respected your vote? don't you try to turn this on me like I"m the rude one. oh and now you immaturely block me, thanks buddy. I see where your maturity level is now. have a good day.
See, melcharaz voted for you because your argument spoke to him intuitively. Nothing wrong with that. You can't win every voter. Especially me cause I'm all of the place. I don't even take political parties, lol.
to be clear, I don't agree with killshot's position, but that doesn't necessarily matter when I vote. He made a decent case with the magic assertion, it was intuitive for me and spoke to my life experience when dealing with Christians. I could think of exceptions, but it wasn't my job to think of them, it was yours.
For me, the goal post for you was to find one singular case of a secular Christian. You came close, but a metaphorical is not secular. Honestly, you should have just mentioned cultural jews. They're basically atheist
Yeah my problem is the phrase "higher truth". If they thinks it's a truth, then it's not merely symbolic. The very disposition of supporting Christianity implies that you believe it to some extent. Now if you had argued for people using it as a secular moral guide, I might have thought differently about it, but taking the bible metaphorically, the way you outlined, still implies at least some belief in the truth of the story. I mean, I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I'm an atheist so this argument isn't intuitive to me. I feel like I was fair because I was the first one to say that killshot was being hyperbolic but there is still some responsibility on your part to counter his claims because I can't just insert my own beliefs into the vote. You have to lead me there by my hand like I'm a toddler who doesn't know what Christianity is.
Thanks for the vote input everyone. This was my first debate for Jesus's historical existence so this was a new experience for me.
at Speedrace. even I thought that sentence I mad about historical standards for Jesus was confusing. lol. So yeah. I mostly posed counter examples just to show good faith to my opponent. I didn't want to find out at the end of the debate that he was right about needing an alternative, lol. I always appreciate vote comments.
Wow, I appreciate the objective vote man. Kudos to you.
Woman think of pecks sexually as well. As far as I can tell, modesty is an imposition of society and there is nothing intrinsic about it. We don't see other mammals covered there sexy parts. I think that intelligence is counter to evolution and causes us to do strange things that make no sense. If someone wanted to root the argument in evolution, I would say that maybe jealously is the reason. A man is self conscious and worried that someone might woo away his mate, so he tries to desexualize here to keep the other alphas away.
I liked your answers for the most part. I'm glad you didn't skip out on questions 8-10 because I usually get dodges on those. kudos for being an honest intellectual. Good debate. You're always welcome at my floor.
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
What makes you think that schools don't already do this? Do you mean local penal codes? Because Federal law is definitely taught in schools and it's not an elective, it's part of history class. They just sneak it in so good that you don't realize it, lol.
If you're talking about in depth semantic bar exam law, then maybe yes?
In my current worldview, Space to me is like a vacuum of nothingness. I would picture it as being something that naturally wants to be filled because all space seems to mostly be filled with something. So maybe I could consider it a type of force. I could not even fathom what truly empty space looks like.
So here's my ultimate concession. I could probably be convinced of space existing. That's not completely off the table for me. Maybe it could be pixelated, there's theory for that already so it has precedent. the time part is definitely a no go for me so that's the key reason I reject spacetime. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that time exist because all of the evidence unequivocally points towards it being an abstract.
My type 1 existence involves holding space in reality, so only matter and energy fit into it. However, I guess I wouldn't be totally against something being type 1 if it's objectively rooted in reality. This would kind of blur the line between type 1 and type 2, but I don't really start to worry until people start trying to stick type 3 and 4 into type 1. That's where I start finger wagging. So I wouldn't be against that per se since it would still give you good logic.
Right, so I would ask what specifically is bending light? Is it space? or gravity? or friction? or physical interactions.
see when they say universe is expanding. All that seems to mean to me is that objects in space are expanding. I get what you mean. This is just always the point I get hung up on. I just don't see how there needs to be a physical thing called "space" that accounts for these interactions because they all just sound like events to me. Sorry if I'm being obtuse about it, lol. I'm not trying to be. It's just there's certain things that I believe that I cannot make myself unbelieve. It's not that I can't change my mind. but there's some thing that hangs me on that belief and in order to eschew it, I have to be able to see why my hang up is not justified. I think out of all of the abstracts, space is the best candidate for not actually being an abstract. So I'll give you that.
Nice rap 6
Holy crap there were still rounds left for this, lol.
what do you mean by "when space expands outward"?
To me, that sounds like motion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm skeptical as to if there actually is "space" between things. Most of the gaps between us is filled with neutrinos just flying right through our body.
To me, what makes up "space" is define by the particles we see. when I see expansion, that just appears as particle interactions. That's always been my biggest problem with it is that space appears to only exist because things are filling it. So how do I know it's not just the result of particle interactions creating the illusion of space?
Athias. I probably shouldn't help you since you're going to vote against me, but in the spirit of fairness. All you need to do is highlight each main point and why it did or did not contribute to your decision then you have to weigh the arguments and state your reason for picking a certain side.
For sources, you have to specifically cite at least one source. You can't appeal to quantity, not saying you did, just stating that for measure. You have to explain why you think the sources impacted the debate.
For conduct, there has to be at least 1 forfeit round or you need to cite specific cases of conduct and why you think they're excessive.
I don't usually vote grammar, but I"m guessing it's along the same lings as sources and conduct.
You can put "tied in all others" when you don't award points and you don't have to explain. However, when you tie and argument point, you still have to explain it.
Hopefully this will help you vote better against me, lol. ;)
Happy voting.
More voters = Better
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
It looks pretty thorough to me without reading it in depth.
Okay, but you literally said that in your debate so why do you need to keep repeating it. it's a voter appeal. This is why I blocked you on DDO because you take this too personally and let it spill out into the comments. Can you just let the debate resolve itself please? This makes arguing against you no fun.
The debate is over. Please stop making voter appeals in the comments as it's bad conduct and also kind of a cheap move.
we all do. It's just habit.
Seriously, though thanks for the vote.
More voters = better.
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
Amen to that...…. wait Secular Amen?
Oh god it's Athias. Everybody run!!
Telling you to stop harassing me for my vote is not an ad hominem attack. You were being unreasonable and I don't need to explain my vote because I wrote a giant paragraph in my vote that tells you everything you need to know. You're just flaming and being a troll and disrespectful. You weren't just interrogating my ideas, you were telling me my vote was wrong which is bad form on your part. The difference between what I did is that I told you I respected your vote and addressed something separate from the topic that I wanted to know about your methodology. Never did I tell you your vote was wrong or make any of the accusations that you've made about me.
spacetime existing is the biggest myth in all of physics. The second biggest myth is eleven dimensions.
right. so can you grab me a piece of space and hand it to me? Space is just what physical things occupy. There's even evidence to show that space isn't what we think it is because particles can ignore distance. So it's not a thing because you can't even have space without at least 2 objects to judge it and you can't have time without at least 3 objects. So how do they exist if viewing them is contingent upon particles?
What does votes have to do with the validity of knowledge? isn't that just subjective?
It's not because the light is ACTUALLY bent. I'm not perceiving the light wrong. The light is just coming in at a strange angle. The problem here is that you think we're seeing the spoon. we're not. We're seeing the light that comes from the spoon which makes a mold of it. However, it doesn't matter because we know it's the light and we adjust our brains for it by consciously adjusting how we treat the spoon.
Your point?
Just planting down my lawn chair.
This looks fun.
conspiracy theories are fun.
After reading your rap. I am now convinced that Type 1 is your alt account.
and Boolean I guess
I speak, English, Spanish, and elephant.
I don't speak html
No way that even compares to the voter flame I just had to experience from this troll.
good I found it. This is the comment that Con mentioned saying I flamed him for voting. Everyone can just judge for themselves if I acted the same as him.
"I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
Once again, I appreciate the vote.
I believe the more voters, the better. "
Man, you repeat your words too much, lol. That's at least the third time you've said herbivore. I guess it makes sense, you kind of blew all your material rapping me.
That guy is a flaming jerk. I'm half inclined to pull up my comments that he mentioned just to show the difference in manners.
poor conduct? I'm not even in a debate dude! What are you talking about? When I commented to you, the first thing I said was "I respect you vote" and my question was concerning why you disbelieved a certain type of evidence, but did I not specifically say I respected your vote? don't you try to turn this on me like I"m the rude one. oh and now you immaturely block me, thanks buddy. I see where your maturity level is now. have a good day.
See, melcharaz voted for you because your argument spoke to him intuitively. Nothing wrong with that. You can't win every voter. Especially me cause I'm all of the place. I don't even take political parties, lol.
to be clear, I don't agree with killshot's position, but that doesn't necessarily matter when I vote. He made a decent case with the magic assertion, it was intuitive for me and spoke to my life experience when dealing with Christians. I could think of exceptions, but it wasn't my job to think of them, it was yours.
actually, even that doesn't work cause they're not Christian, lol. Maybe the topic was doomed for you since the beginning, lol.
For me, the goal post for you was to find one singular case of a secular Christian. You came close, but a metaphorical is not secular. Honestly, you should have just mentioned cultural jews. They're basically atheist
okay. I really don't appreciate when people flame me for my vote. I'm entitled to my opinion so kindly shove a sock in it.
I already told you why I didn't vote for you. You didn't make a good enough case. Take that how you want but don't harass me.
If you're talking about the beginning. I mean to elaborate on it but forgot, but I explained it in my rebuttals.
there's just all kinds of ways this could go horribly wrong for either side.
Taking the hard skeptic approach I see. Respect.
Yeah my problem is the phrase "higher truth". If they thinks it's a truth, then it's not merely symbolic. The very disposition of supporting Christianity implies that you believe it to some extent. Now if you had argued for people using it as a secular moral guide, I might have thought differently about it, but taking the bible metaphorically, the way you outlined, still implies at least some belief in the truth of the story. I mean, I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I'm an atheist so this argument isn't intuitive to me. I feel like I was fair because I was the first one to say that killshot was being hyperbolic but there is still some responsibility on your part to counter his claims because I can't just insert my own beliefs into the vote. You have to lead me there by my hand like I'm a toddler who doesn't know what Christianity is.
Thanks for the vote input everyone. This was my first debate for Jesus's historical existence so this was a new experience for me.
at Speedrace. even I thought that sentence I mad about historical standards for Jesus was confusing. lol. So yeah. I mostly posed counter examples just to show good faith to my opponent. I didn't want to find out at the end of the debate that he was right about needing an alternative, lol. I always appreciate vote comments.
Not that I need an alt account when I have so much fun with just the one, lol. Alt accounts are vacuous if they're not for play to pay games.