I have read the debate like ten times. A single contadiction does not mean much he automatically loses on arguments. I am not going to be comfortable weighing arguments. I have merely been going through unvoted debates today and trying to ensure no debate goes unvoted. I will consider removing my vote since it does not judge arguments if you get a few competent votes who do judge the arguments.
We are not enemies and I planned on rereading arguments a few more times in an attempt to better understand them. I need to put pen to paper to decise though
Bsh1 if this is a rational debate you are having within yourself just drop it. Look at the people close to you who have a deep faith in Jesus Christ and ask yourself if that is the type of person you want to be. My guess is the people who have deep faith arpund you are loving successful people (in the ways that matter), and are happy. Ask yourself if that is what you want for yourself. You can be gay and accept Jesus Christ into your life. It is not being gay that is a sin but the acts of homosexuality, but they are no more a sin than when somebody says that their wife looks good in a dress that makes them look fat. We are all sinners and asking for his forgiveness and allowing him to work on Your heart is what matters. Bsh1 you are loved by your father who is in heaven and he values you coming home to him more than he values the sheep he already has (see the prodigal son story Jesus tells). You must seek God with your heart not with logic. (There is a good reason the world works this way, will explain later if curious.
Why is everyone presupposing in these debates that truth matyers when choosing what is rational to believe in. Seeing as how truth is unknowable the rational set of beliefs a person should have, should be based on what beliefs are most beneficial to have.
Club if the wikipedia entry is unreliable, point out what facts it got wrong. If you think none of the facts he points out using wikipedia is wrong than it is stupid to call this instance unreliable.
Okay still need washington post link but found the stat you forgot to cite here https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
You have misinterpreted your own definitions. Hopefully you improve your reading compregension skills and ability to write in a coherent fashion before responding to my arguments otherwise this will be an easy win for me but a frustrating debate for voters to read through.
What the hell did I think I was going to get when somebody thinks the definition of socialisation is to implement socialistic policies instead of meaning to "talk to people".
You actually misinterpreted your own definitions lol and I even accepted the one fron the random user on stack exchange. I've debated dozens of timea on objective morality. I know what it is. You are confused and doubling down instead of trying to understand. I have read your other debates though and see the comprehension thing and incoherence is a common problem with you. It is not an insult. Just the truth.
You are honestly having a hard time understanding the definitions you, yourself googled and provided. I think it is due to reading comprehension problems and a low IQ. I tried my best to dumb down the definitions to a level you would understand but I could not dumb them down enough. You can go to the philosophy portion of the forums and ask about it there, but I get a feeling your comprehension ability will prevent you from understanding what people are telling you there as well.
Qhat's said right now is that you are being ignorant. The bible can be completely fake and the norality could be provably wrong and it would still be objective morality espoused in the bible. This is not that difficult to understand except for the fact you think describing a system of ethics as being objective morality means you are claiming it holds some sort of truth. How this is written if your opponent even stated "tThe bible claims murder is wrong" he would be violating the rules of the debate because that is an example of objective morality, whetger it is true or not.
Well you can feel free to have comprehension issues on the subject but you are incorrect. Subjective or objective reality can be objectively correct or objecfively wrong (in theory) but it does not mean subjectively right or wrong.
An objective moral statement would be something like the following.
"Lying is wrong in all situations"
Where subjective morality would be something along the lines of the following statement.
"Lying is sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the situation"
Subjective ethics would be something along the lines of utilitarianism which accounts for the effects of your immediate actions while objective morality may resemble Kantian ethics.
Objective doesn't imply that the framework is correct though somebody pushing the framework will obviously believe it to be correct.
Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with the ethical framework presented in the bible LOL. It is objective morality whether it is true pr not. Is this trolling or are you legitimately that dense?
The point is that the morals in the bible claim to be an objective set of morals (not situational) but you are asking your opponent to argue in favor of subjective (situational ethics in the bible when none exist.
That is tge definition of what a person believing in objective morality professes it is not a statement on whether objective morality is true nor how we get to what is objectively correct.
If you didn't understand the answer you found on stack exchange perhaps you should have found one you could understand. Now I am not even sure if you are trolling or just really confused about what it means for somebody to believe that morality is objective.
No, lol. Whether it is objective or subjective morality being applied has nothing to do with whether God's morality is objectively right.
Subjective morality means morality that is shaped by whatever is correct in the moment. Objective means it is a more rigud standard of ethics. It has nothing to do with whether the morals are objectively right or not.
Challenge me to a young earth creationism debate right now. You won't because you know that the Earth is no more than 25,000 years old. It is certainly not millions of year. Nice you blocked me because you know I would destroy you.
Why would the debate assume God's view is subjective. That is not only dumb and unfair to your opponent it is untrue. The morality handed down in the bible is pretty objective. Do not murder. Do not steal, do not fuck your neighbor's wife etc. No ody is going to debate this dumb shit. You must be hoping somebody glosses over your conditions so you can get an easy win
With that said bsh1 needs to drop his no forfeit rule. If somebody has better arguments than you, using one less round than that punishment is too harsh it is also a judgement that should strictly belong to the judges. If I decide to judge this debate I will disregard the rule vut it is unlikely I vote on it
Most of my 44 losses there were also from my issues that I had a hard time controlling though I did pull off some wins in those phases and certainly some of the losses came at opponents who I gave my best and lost to
I am for Laisse Faire capitalism if other nations are behaving ethically. Unfortunately China does things like sale televisions at a loss so American companies can't compete, which is why America does not have any TV manufacturers. They attempted the same thing with Solar panels until Trump shut that down to save American companies
I won't answer the questions in the debate, but since you are curious I will answer them here.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro government not anarchist.
Pretty cowardly ogf you to need an advantage instead of a fair debate but since my position is objectively correct and I am a better debater, I guess I can accept and still be confident I will win.
How can anybody think I am awful LOL. Also I am also copy and pasting from previous debates. What is fair for you is fair for me. Resolution "The United States should build and mantain a border wall on it's southern border"
There are studies conducted in 1930 that are still considered reliable. Do you have a real argument against it or is this just "It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"
Literally the first google result but I did the work for you here https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia's opinion about it's reliability is wrong. With obscure topics you should obviously use more caution but using it as just a way to spread general knowledge such as "Lincoln was the 16th president is fine" those topics even when wrong information is put in is quickly fixed so actually seeing a mistake in them is rare. We are also just talking about citing them for a good overview of a subject, you wouldn't want to cite them for the nitty gritty things, especially since they do provide original sources for you that you can dive into.
If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.
The debate should take place in the debate. It is rude to help one side. You are also being dumb by being so dismissive of Wikipedia. Studies have shown it to be as reliable as the encyclopedia Britannica, however even if it isn't it is just cited for general information that is easy to verify in other places so it is no big dealm
Your argument sucked, and I would have easily crushed you in a policy debate on whether we should vuild a border wall. I don't mind you copy and pasting what you wrote in previous debates either to save time. In fact I prefer ypu dp because the arguments are weak.
Both of you had issues to be honest.
I have read the debate like ten times. A single contadiction does not mean much he automatically loses on arguments. I am not going to be comfortable weighing arguments. I have merely been going through unvoted debates today and trying to ensure no debate goes unvoted. I will consider removing my vote since it does not judge arguments if you get a few competent votes who do judge the arguments.
I don't even like the con position but thought other things about this debate made it interesting. I doubt I would do this topic again.
We are not enemies and I planned on rereading arguments a few more times in an attempt to better understand them. I need to put pen to paper to decise though
Thank you
Planned on it actually
Bsh1 if this is a rational debate you are having within yourself just drop it. Look at the people close to you who have a deep faith in Jesus Christ and ask yourself if that is the type of person you want to be. My guess is the people who have deep faith arpund you are loving successful people (in the ways that matter), and are happy. Ask yourself if that is what you want for yourself. You can be gay and accept Jesus Christ into your life. It is not being gay that is a sin but the acts of homosexuality, but they are no more a sin than when somebody says that their wife looks good in a dress that makes them look fat. We are all sinners and asking for his forgiveness and allowing him to work on Your heart is what matters. Bsh1 you are loved by your father who is in heaven and he values you coming home to him more than he values the sheep he already has (see the prodigal son story Jesus tells). You must seek God with your heart not with logic. (There is a good reason the world works this way, will explain later if curious.
Why is everyone presupposing in these debates that truth matyers when choosing what is rational to believe in. Seeing as how truth is unknowable the rational set of beliefs a person should have, should be based on what beliefs are most beneficial to have.
It has less than 3 days left. Please don't force me to vote on this by ignoring it.
Club if the wikipedia entry is unreliable, point out what facts it got wrong. If you think none of the facts he points out using wikipedia is wrong than it is stupid to call this instance unreliable.
Okay still need washington post link but found the stat you forgot to cite here https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Your washington post link is broken. Can you post it in the comments so I can check your citation
You have misinterpreted your own definitions. Hopefully you improve your reading compregension skills and ability to write in a coherent fashion before responding to my arguments otherwise this will be an easy win for me but a frustrating debate for voters to read through.
What the hell did I think I was going to get when somebody thinks the definition of socialisation is to implement socialistic policies instead of meaning to "talk to people".
I broke down the definitions to you in an understandable way and you are still confused by them. This is just getting silly
You actually misinterpreted your own definitions lol and I even accepted the one fron the random user on stack exchange. I've debated dozens of timea on objective morality. I know what it is. You are confused and doubling down instead of trying to understand. I have read your other debates though and see the comprehension thing and incoherence is a common problem with you. It is not an insult. Just the truth.
I will join you in the top ten. I am done fucking around.
You are honestly having a hard time understanding the definitions you, yourself googled and provided. I think it is due to reading comprehension problems and a low IQ. I tried my best to dumb down the definitions to a level you would understand but I could not dumb them down enough. You can go to the philosophy portion of the forums and ask about it there, but I get a feeling your comprehension ability will prevent you from understanding what people are telling you there as well.
Unlike traditional politicians in that region he is neither. He is pro Ukraine.
Qhat's said right now is that you are being ignorant. The bible can be completely fake and the norality could be provably wrong and it would still be objective morality espoused in the bible. This is not that difficult to understand except for the fact you think describing a system of ethics as being objective morality means you are claiming it holds some sort of truth. How this is written if your opponent even stated "tThe bible claims murder is wrong" he would be violating the rules of the debate because that is an example of objective morality, whetger it is true or not.
Well you can feel free to have comprehension issues on the subject but you are incorrect. Subjective or objective reality can be objectively correct or objecfively wrong (in theory) but it does not mean subjectively right or wrong.
An objective moral statement would be something like the following.
"Lying is wrong in all situations"
Where subjective morality would be something along the lines of the following statement.
"Lying is sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the situation"
Subjective ethics would be something along the lines of utilitarianism which accounts for the effects of your immediate actions while objective morality may resemble Kantian ethics.
Objective doesn't imply that the framework is correct though somebody pushing the framework will obviously believe it to be correct.
Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with the ethical framework presented in the bible LOL. It is objective morality whether it is true pr not. Is this trolling or are you legitimately that dense?
The point is that the morals in the bible claim to be an objective set of morals (not situational) but you are asking your opponent to argue in favor of subjective (situational ethics in the bible when none exist.
That is tge definition of what a person believing in objective morality professes it is not a statement on whether objective morality is true nor how we get to what is objectively correct.
If you didn't understand the answer you found on stack exchange perhaps you should have found one you could understand. Now I am not even sure if you are trolling or just really confused about what it means for somebody to believe that morality is objective.
No, lol. Whether it is objective or subjective morality being applied has nothing to do with whether God's morality is objectively right.
Subjective morality means morality that is shaped by whatever is correct in the moment. Objective means it is a more rigud standard of ethics. It has nothing to do with whether the morals are objectively right or not.
Challenge me to a young earth creationism debate right now. You won't because you know that the Earth is no more than 25,000 years old. It is certainly not millions of year. Nice you blocked me because you know I would destroy you.
The Earth is also less than 15000 years old also, but you are a coward and wpuld never debate me on it
Why would the debate assume God's view is subjective. That is not only dumb and unfair to your opponent it is untrue. The morality handed down in the bible is pretty objective. Do not murder. Do not steal, do not fuck your neighbor's wife etc. No ody is going to debate this dumb shit. You must be hoping somebody glosses over your conditions so you can get an easy win
With that said bsh1 needs to drop his no forfeit rule. If somebody has better arguments than you, using one less round than that punishment is too harsh it is also a judgement that should strictly belong to the judges. If I decide to judge this debate I will disregard the rule vut it is unlikely I vote on it
My argument would have been that it is more rational to believe because the benefits of believeing outweigh the benefits of not believing.
Good thing I'm not making a leftist argument.
Most of my 44 losses there were also from my issues that I had a hard time controlling though I did pull off some wins in those phases and certainly some of the losses came at opponents who I gave my best and lost to
Yes it is
No I mean on an actual debate site. I mean public, not live
I am for Laisse Faire capitalism if other nations are behaving ethically. Unfortunately China does things like sale televisions at a loss so American companies can't compete, which is why America does not have any TV manufacturers. They attempted the same thing with Solar panels until Trump shut that down to save American companies
I won't answer the questions in the debate, but since you are curious I will answer them here.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro government not anarchist.
I ha e over 300 public debates. I'm sure you could find one.
Fedoras are hats. They don't fight, genius
Pretty cowardly ogf you to need an advantage instead of a fair debate but since my position is objectively correct and I am a better debater, I guess I can accept and still be confident I will win.
How can anybody think I am awful LOL. Also I am also copy and pasting from previous debates. What is fair for you is fair for me. Resolution "The United States should build and mantain a border wall on it's southern border"
I lost 14 debates and you would still be incapable of beating me.
There are studies conducted in 1930 that are still considered reliable. Do you have a real argument against it or is this just "It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"
I'm overdue for a win
Literally the first google result but I did the work for you here https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia's opinion about it's reliability is wrong. With obscure topics you should obviously use more caution but using it as just a way to spread general knowledge such as "Lincoln was the 16th president is fine" those topics even when wrong information is put in is quickly fixed so actually seeing a mistake in them is rare. We are also just talking about citing them for a good overview of a subject, you wouldn't want to cite them for the nitty gritty things, especially since they do provide original sources for you that you can dive into.
If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.
The debate should take place in the debate. It is rude to help one side. You are also being dumb by being so dismissive of Wikipedia. Studies have shown it to be as reliable as the encyclopedia Britannica, however even if it isn't it is just cited for general information that is easy to verify in other places so it is no big dealm
Your argument sucked, and I would have easily crushed you in a policy debate on whether we should vuild a border wall. I don't mind you copy and pasting what you wrote in previous debates either to save time. In fact I prefer ypu dp because the arguments are weak.
I wanted to argue with him that it wasn't an easy win, but my record doesn't back that up.
Did you forget about me?
Yes, but I have a strong argument
If pro says he wants me to split bop when I judge this, I will do so.