No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not exclusive to America, although established here in 1830, but is found in over 160 countries, and publishes it's unique scriptures [Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price] in over 100 languages.
Of course USA has been less Christian on any level, not just fundamental, than Europe simply because USA has existed for less than 250 years, while Europe has existed well over a millennia, with Christianity being significantly older than either. No concession necessary; that's just fact. On the other hand, your could argue that the population of EU is 449M, of which 64% are Christian [287M], while the US population is 340M, with 62% being Christian = 211M. You win, again with no philosophic discussion ever mentioned.
Yes, actually, for all intents, water, at least as a liquid, is always wet, in spite of my anally-retentive citation that it takes 6 molecules for water to begin to be wet. The other side of that coin is that there are, in the "average" drop of water, 1.2 +E 21 [1.2 sextillion] molecules.
All you say is true, except when there are only 5 or fewer molecules of water - an impractical condition, I admit, but it is a factual limitation to wetness.
X.a Pro’s Resolution and Description, and BoP [burden of proof] are understood, because it is spelled out in both sections; loosely in the Resolution as the economy being negatively affected just by Trump tariffs, and in more detail as negatively affected just by Trump tariffs in the Description. No, I don’t see detail in either, either. What I see is what I’ve already argued in R1 and R2: Pro’s Resolution and Description are short on detail. In fact, Pro’s only detailed offer is [Description]: “Use any economic indicator you want. I won’t provide a metric for “negative economic effect” because I leave that up to the debater.”
X.a.1 Pro will not offer a metric to prove his BoP? That was the claim… No need? Curious perspective. Most who debate intend to have burdens of proof to argue.
X.a.2 I presume “the debater” means me, Con. And I also read that as giving me both BoPs as a burden to argue his negatives and my alleged positives. Thanks. Oh, but that darn Resolution does not imply that I must argue positives. Its implication is only that I defeat the proposal that the economy “tanked,” and only due to Trump tariffs of the second term. I argued by his suggestion, anyway. See below. And as my choice of “metric,” I suggested several in R1 [gold, silver, Apple [NASDAQ], and Amazon [NYSE]]. In R2, I narrowed that to gold [although right now, all are doing very well as my primary argument [thanks]. I realized I needed but one example to defeat the Resolution.[20]
X.b So, gold, per ounce, on close of 4/2 3,120 [rounded - USD]
[day of Trump tariff notice]
4/3 3,118 [loss, $2 per share]
4/4 2,054 [loss, $66; total loss $68]
4/7 2,014 [loss, $50; total loss $118]
4/12 3,204 [gain, $190; all loss recovered]
[day I accepted debate]
4/15 3,219 [ day after Pontiff hospitalized]
4/22 3,433 [day after Pontiff dies, record day]
5/2 3,249 [close of week trading]
[gain total: $129 per share from 4/2]
X.b.1 I chose a metric that defeats Pro’s Resolution. While there was a 5-day loss of $118 [all of 3.8% - a “massive sell off”accordions to Pro], gold regained all loss to $3,204 by the 10th day [4/12], and, as of close of last week, 5/2, a further gain to $3,249, $129 above 4/2. My math may be checked, but I cannot call +$84 after 10 days, or +$129 after
XI.a Over a more sensible market view than ten days, we see a mores realistic result, and recall that I suggested another view in my R2, VII,a.2 re: my gold investment: “…it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, precious metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down.” However, that longer view of the stock market is also revealing. Over that same 50 years, this insignificant bump of Pro’s “massive sell off” is invisbje. No, Pro did not claim Donald Trump has had effect on the market for 50 years, he did not need to say so in his R3, but, on the other hand, perhaps Pro ought to have at least taken the view. “Massive sell off” would be worded by softer terms.
XI.b Pro’s R3 claim: “You have a BOP to prove that Trump’s tariffs had a positive effect…” is as good a place to conclude as any. Well, on the day I accepted this debate, 4/12… I’ll just refer you to my argument, above, R3, X.b - X.d, the gold price dailies from 4/2 to 5/2. Some days were excluded as not relevant. I promise there are no gains or losses above or below these days represented. And, as Pro has agreed, day-trading is like gambling; and I’ll add that the odds are likely against us. So, why is Pro’s scope of this debate about half of even 30 days, let alone since 1/20/2025; Trump’s 2nd term inauguration?
XI.c Looks like a positive effect to me, but I do not claim that it was Trump effect for any reason, just as my R2, and R3, have noted, and as I quoted, “the Market is fickle.”
XI.d I conclude that I wish the price of gold is as claimed by Pro, having started investing years ago at $400 per ounce! WOW! I’m not just rich; I’m a 1-percenter!!! Nope, no such luck.
I also conclude the Resolution fails, anyway. Thank you to Moozer for the debate, and to readers, especially those who vote.
"omnipotence" needs no qualification of "maximally" or any other descriptive. The word, itself, by its Latin root, implies all [omni] power [potence]. You're merely creating verbosity.
And, saying that god [any] is "omnipotent" does not necessarily mean he/she acts omnipotently all the time. I suspect god acts with only the prudent power required to accomplish a given task. I suggest, for example, that it does not take omnipotence to plant seeds, whereas, organizing energy and matter from chaos to order just might. You, yourself, possess a certain power. Do you use all of it all the time? No? Then, why should god?
Since both parties forfeited, this debate is likely to end with zero votes, as it should. This was a good topic of debate, but is poorly lacking in definitions, and in prep time for arguments.
And, biologically, though I agree with Pro that only two sexes/genders exist, that the genitals are definitive sex identifiers is not correct; they're merely convenient since the stats are, according to the Library of Medicine [in the U.S.], that 99.99999993 percent of the world's human population are either XX or XY, and that it is actually the set of gonads, either ovaries or testes, that actually determine sex/gender, and not the genitals [and certainly not the choosing brain], of which a very small percentage of us have both, but only one set of gonads to a customer - 100% of us.
Barney, may I request that my vote either be deleted to re-enter my intent, or... It is my choice that Pro win the debate, but the last two mentions of Con in my vote should have been for Pro, not Con. If you can just change those last two references that Pro wins the debate, I would appreciate it it. I've indicated in the actual vote that Con wins, but that's wrong, too. Damn, don't know what I'm thinking!
X Rebuttal: A limited debate
X.a I had a different R3 planned, but I am shocked by Pro’s R2, line 2: “Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.” That is a fair statement, but, only applicable prior to accepting the debate. Pro did not close with any mention of the debate being unfair. Pro accepted this debate as is. I cite from DebateArt Information Center, Debates: “Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.”[26] Two of the locked features are the Resolution and Description. The time to request alteration of them is during the Challenge phase via Comments, but not after the debate has begun; in this case, on 4/21; 8 days prior to Pro’s rule-change demand. That is “not fair.” Refer to my R2, V [all sub-¶s, V.a - V.c]. I did not define God, nor assign attributes, including to what religion he bears allegiance, if any.
X.b Pro’s R2, line 3; “Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.” Debate rules are truisms? My, but how that definition inflates. My R2, Section V rebutted Pro’s charge of “truism.” I stand on that rebuttal. I also rebutted in R2, Section VIII, and did not begin or end my arguments in R1 with my single reference to Article VII. Let my R2, Section VIII have its full weight of added argumentation, to which I note, with the exception of my VIII.b.2, Pro did not rebut.
X.b.1 Pro said, re: my VIII.b.2, “Con is not arguing how the context implies religious significance or god of any sort, he has essentially given up on proving his BOP and conceded the resolution. “ I remind of the Resolution and Description: referring readers to these as given on the top page of this Debate #6075 .
X.b.1.A I’ll remind of a statement in the Description, and now underlined for emphasis: “…no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration… This is a generic debate which does not exclude atheists or agnostics from accepting the debate because belief in, or acknowledgement of the subject is not required…
X.b.1.B This in no way implies that religious argument cannot be made, and I did so in R2, citing the Holy Bible, the Qu’ran, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
X.b.2 It is Pro who suggests, after acceptance, to limit this debate: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.” Compare this quote to the Resolution and Description/definition.
Do they match? No.
Did the Resolution even suggest that God created and rules the universe? No.
Does the Description define God by any traits or birthrights? No.
Is Pro the initiator? No.
Has the true initiator conceded? Hell, no.
Is the Pro suggestion that the initiator, Con, concede a fair debate argument? No.
Has Con suggested Pro concede after the latter’s demand that Con concede? No.
XI.a Pro’s R1 2nd ¶ accused my “…technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality.” Pro points to my reference to the US Constitution’s Article VII “the year of our Lord…” as my only possible argument. Recall my R2 rebuttals, V, VI, VII, and VIII, which added references from nearly the full balance of constitutional Articles, and “at least” six added Amendments which carry cursory, godly advice, about eleven separate arguments with references. There were added supporting references from various holy writ as specified above, X.b.1.B. I might accept the single reference of Article VII is a “technicality,” on the basis of which Pro charged that I expect to win the debate. I never said that. I am using all three rounds; two for argument; two for rebuttal. These should not be considered a “technicality.”
XI.b Pro’s R2, 4th line claimed: “Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.” New or interesting? Can Pro, or readers, truly say they are not moved by revealing, as I did in my R2, VIII.f, that such a grand concept as due process, enshrined in the US Constitution, finds relevance in an antiquated source of gods interacting with man with such a gift as old as the 3rd millennium B.C.E, in E.A. Wallis Budge’s translation/transliteration of Ani’s The Egyptian Book of the Dead [R2, [25]]; rites that age still older by two to three millennia before being documented by Ani, the scribe.[27] Who among you is so intimately familiar with these antiquities? Truism? No, but absolutely true. Due process brought to and for man by gods named Osiris, Thoth, and Horus, Ra, and even Isis, etc… By the time our boy, Jimmy Madison came along, it was already an ancient gift of gods. It was ancient even to Genesis.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XII.a From my debate Description: “This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of ‘Lord,’ or ‘God,’ so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration.” I did this to avoid what Pro argued, anyway, in his R1, ¶9, that my BoP was to prove a god of specific religion; but only from a choice among four. This is an attempt to impose limitation on me to one of the four types, violating the open-season, unlimited Resolution and Description.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XIII Rebuttal: A limited alleged kritik
XIII.a Pro made reference to “kritik,”[R1, ¶3] citing the DebateArt.com “Kritik Guide.”[28] Its four categories are [from which I first quote directly in each ¶ below]:
XIII.a.1 “Analysis: The main complaint:” Pro attempts to limit Con’s argument to a single argument that could not be expanded, making Pro’s own case a failed kritik. Refer to my R2, or its summary above, XI.a, relative to added arguments beyond Pro’s alleged “technicality” of my R1 alleged “truism.”
XIII.a.2 “Link: Specific element of the opponent’s case:” Pro said, “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu [sic] and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.”[29] However, Pro can make no reference to any citation of mine claiming any demonstrative attributes or allegiances of/to God relative to creation nor rule; only that he exists, and, I suggested in argument [R2, VI.a.2.A] that he assures our existence after death as an ontological proof of his existence.
XIII.a.3 “Implication: The damage done if the kritik is ignored:” We often fail by arguing our own limitations when thinking we identify those of others, but we are boxed by them. Consider: “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”[30] An alleged Oscar Wilde quote is relevant when occupying someone else’s head: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”[31] “Physician, heal thyself”[32] is useful warning when we dare suggest another begin their debate by “…fire all of your guns at once and explode into space…” [not quoted because Pro argued this lyric, but because it’s a Steppenwolf lyric, deserving citation[33]. I repeat: I did not end my argument against the Resolution in R1, nor only by Article VII of the US Constitution. No, my arguments, and attending source references average in number much more than the number of rounds. So, even if voters agree my R1 argument of Article VII fails to impress, the volume of other arguments that avoided successful rebuttal by Pro are to be considered for merit by voters to defeat the Resolution.
XIII.a.4 “What better solution the kritik suggests:” Do not suggest a debate opponent is limited to a single argument only because it is overly obvious. That limitation, itself, is a boxed truism shown to be a flag’s wind flagging, particularly when the claim is accused of the first round of a multi-round debate; by Pro declaring personal victory, and the opponent’s defeat. It may ultimately bite back. Does attempt to change the parameters of a debate after accepting it potentially become its own truism?
XIV Conclusion: A burden lifted
XIV.a By calling my first argument a truism, then alleging I had no other, then suggesting the debate protocol be changed [alleging I have no more to say] then floating a modern-day revolution as expertise of constitutional intent when its words simply mean what they say, I suggest my 2 rounds of argument, and 2 rounds of rebuttal, have successfully taken flight.
XIX.b No, my rounds of argument and rebuttal did not allege that “Lord,” or “God” is not specifically referenced in the Constitution other than in Article VII, but denial of specific reference was not Con’s BoP of the Resolution nor Description. The Being[s] “mentioned” by reference to principles he/they suggest, such as “due process,” and they are not the the godly Beings of any specific religion, but of all, is demonstrated in my arguments/rebutals, multiple times.
Adieu.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the debate, and readers for reading it. I encourage our readers to render thoughtful voting based on sourced evidence within the accepted debate, when accepted, and without attempted alteration after acceptance.
Sources:
[26] https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
[27] https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/egyptian-book-dead#:~:text=A document that changed the,equipment, by about 1600 BCE.
[28] https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
[29] Debate #6075, Pro R1, ¶9
[30] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 4
[31] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/20/be-yourself/
[32] Holy Bible [KJV] Luke 4: 23
[33] Steppenwolf, “Born to be Wild,” Mars Bonfire, Dunhill/RCA, 1968
VI.a Stock Market: Tracking dailies of NYSE is not productive since its intent is a long-term investment strategy.[12] Pro’s R1 argument, continued in R2, maintains that dailies are still valid to prove the effect of Trump tariffs imposed not just in his 2nd term, but just since April, but offers no back-up support by credible sourcing to prove the BoP. This is only by Pro’s personal opinion. Since the stock market is Pro’s number one factor Resolution’s primary subject, economy, one should presume it have substantiation of just Trump cause by more than opinion, but by a credible evidence, which must be more than a daily media source; ex: NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.
VI.b Consumer Burden: Perennial year-over-year trade imbalance [more imports to US from trade partners than US exports to trade partners] with most of our top 10 trading partners having the U.S. in a trade deficit. That loss is, itself, a drain on the consumer.
The alleged Trump effect of tariffs from just three weeks ago as an exclusively 2nd-term issue is virtually impossible to separately quantify. See source reference [15] when addressed in section IX]. This was not addressed in Pro’s R2.
VI.c Macroeconomic Consequence: “The balance of trade is one of the key components of a country’s gross domestic product [GDP].”[13] A perennial trade deficit, which has been our US experience since WWII [14], lowers the US real GDP. The issue has existed far longer [since post WWII] than Trump’s 2nd term tariff proposals. Pro cannot quantify separate effect from WWII and a comparatively brief effect of Trump’s tariff activity since 4/2, let alone his brief second term. GDP is not a feature whose data is reactive to just a few days of tracking, as is the necessary model for Pro’s Resolution.
VI.d Retaliation: Pro claimed, “Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true,” but did not bother to back-up the claim with credible sourcing. Another unsubstantiated opinion. It is obvious hearsay due to the trade imbalance we have with top-ten trading partners, and not exclusively due [if at all] to second-term Trump-proposed tariffs. [See source citation in R1 rebuttal II.a [6]] This was not rebutted in Pro’s R2 but for the above quoted Pro claim.
VII Rebuttal: Pro R2
VII.a Reaction of the Market: Is it due to Trump tariffs, or by nervous marketeers reacting to other NYSE influences [see R2, VIII.a.3]? Pro continues to insist that the NYSE, et al, reaction by lost points since first week of April is all due to Trump tariffs, but has yet to back up his claim by any credible source. I call that a failed argument.
VII.a.1 Pro’s R2, ¶3 rebuts my personal-experience argument re: precious metal investments and wants evidence Trump is responsible for its effect on the economy. I am not arguing Trump is responsible for my precious metals gains over the last 50 years; his second term began only 100 days ago; or, only four weeks to use Pro’s updated calendar since 4/2. I am claiming only that precious metals are a more stable investment than the NYSE whether Trump has influence, or not. Refer to VI.a.1, above.
VII.a.2 Pro’s R2, ¶4 rebuts my personal experience “of 1 data point.” No, it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down, but, again, Pro has not yet provided any credible source that assures Trump is responsible for 50 years of up/down pricing. I argue it is nervous investors selling, that causes market downs for which I have demonstrated credible sourcing [R1, [6]].
VII.a.3 Pro R2, ¶5 claims “…gold prices actually did go down during the tariff announcement on the fourth. They came back, but it still goes to show that the Tariffs had a negative effect.” But Pro claims the neg effect is by unique Trump effect, but offers no credible back-up for the claim. Again, I maintain it is nervous reaction by investors, just as they also did last Monday, 4/21. Was this also due to Trump tariffs? No, it was nervous reaction to the death of Pope Francis. Next week, it may react negatively to black smoke from St. Peter’s Square. The week after that, perhaps to white smoke from St. Peter’s Square, and then the Elon Musk departure from direct management of DOGE… then there’s the Putin-Zelensky dance… and Supreme Court decisions… and then some claim by Occasional Cortex [my moniker for AOC] that barstools qualify for consumer tax rebates. A commentary by one financial advisement group settles the controversy: “Stock markets are fickle.”[15]
VII.a.4 Pro R2, ¶6 claims “…you [meaning me, Con] still haven’t proven that this metric went down due to tariffs and second, even if tariffs did help gold and silver, you’d have to show that gold and silver have a bigger effect on the economy than GDP.” Sorry, it is not my BoP to prove the market declined due to tariffs; that is Pro’s claimed BoP. And, my read of the Resolution and Description, I have no BoP to prove effect of any investment on GDP. Pro apparently wants me to share his head. No thanks; got my own.
VII.a.5 Pro asked what I meant by my very positive results in stock investment, such as Apple. At Apple IPO offering in 1980, I purchased $500 of Apl stock. Since then, it has gained 249,900%[16], and no other investment I own has done nearly as well, but none are affected negatively over time, even in the last 4 weeks. You tell me why, but also tell me if I care that it lost a couple of percentages, but gained them back, plus, since 4/2. That is contrary to the Resolution.
VII.a.6 Pro closed R2 with the last 2 ¶s that appear to mimic my R1, IV.b, but not by quoting, and then turns it on me to prove his BoP. I have no need nor desire to prove Pro’s BoP for him. [More head sharing?] That’s on him.
VIII Argument: “Official” Tax Foundation Report
VIII.a The Tax Foundation website[17] keeps a running “record” [i.e., assumed facts] of the alleged Trump second-term proposed tariffs, but takes the liberty of ignoring that, although delays have been announced, and the periodically updated timeline does acknowledge delays, the report still uses such language in “Key Findings” as “The weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports WILL RISE to 25.8 percent under the tariffs…” Note the absolutism of “will rise” when previously acknowledging delays, which will always alter consequences. That is inaccurate reporting of assumed future conditions, in spite of current facts and thus are not applicable future “facts.” Any statistical model must acknowledge that conditionals affect future probabilities within a confidence level that may not achieve the statistical expectation of 95% minimum.[18] That is inaccurate modeling, and does not conform to appropriate design of experiments. Thus, it is to be avoided.[19]
IX Conclusion
IX.a I conclude that Pro’s two rounds of argument and his 2nd round rebuttals fail to demonstrate Pro’s Resolution of economic negativity exclusively due to the effect of Trump tariffs. My first and second round arguments, and rebuttals demonstrate the Resolution is false due to longer-standing issues than Trump’s 2nd term, and are impossible to segregate and quantify as exclusively due to Trump, as the Resolution claims. Thank you for your continued attention.
Best wishes to Pro for R3.
Sources:
[12] See my R1 rebuttal III.a, b; IV.b
[13] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061515/what-impact-does-balance-trade-have-gdp-calculations.asp
[14] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/may/historical-u-s-trade-deficits
[15] https://www.baileywealthadvisors.com/blog/stock-markets-are-fickle
[16] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/apple-ipo-anniversary-apple-stock-price-surge-a-1000-investment-44-years-ago-would-have-made-your-richer-by-249900-by-now/articleshow/116285177.cms?from=mdr
[17] https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/#timeline
[18] Quality Council of Indiana, “CSSBB [Certified Six Sigma Black Belt] Primer,” IN, 2022
[19] fauxlaw is an ASQ- Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, a recognized expert in statistical modeling and design of experiments.
This debate so far ignores a curious science that ought to be well understood by anyone having taken high school chemistry - at leased when minors' education actually educated rather than dictated and manipulated. Water, H2O, is a molecule made of two combined gasses, both of which have the property of "dry." And, in fact, up to five water molecules grouped together are dry. When a sixth molecule is added to the 5, they are then wet, and any more molecules added to it become wet. Water can be frozen to a temperature that, if the temp is maintained, the ice is dry. Steam is dry unless there are embedded water drops in the steam.
However, not all liquid elements are wet on the condition that "wetness" makes other elements damp or soaked. Liquid gold, for example , and many other liquid metals, are not wet by the damp or soaked condition and do not dampen or soak other "dry" elements. Liquid water, for example, spilled on most surfaces [steel, aluminum, glazed tile, etc], do not dampen or soak those materials. When wiped away completely, the surface is dry. Wetness is a matter of surface tension of water. On a sheet of drywall, for example, it may be resistant to dampening for a short period, but longer term exposure will ultimately dampen or soak it.
Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks.
Update of a minor error in my posts 32, 33, 34 comprising my R2 rebuttal/argument: : for the line following my last entry, [#32 - they run in reverse order, 34, 33, 32] R2, IX.a, I make reference to pro taking R3. Pls. read that as R2. Sorry.
Welcome to Round 2 [04/25/2025]
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for your R1.
V Rebuttal: The Alternative “Truism”
V.a Pro accused a “truism;” by me; that I set a trap for this debate in citing the U.S. Constitution’s Article VII use of a common “mention” of “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…” That is the obvious mention. However, “mention” can be subtle. My Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines “mention” as speaking of, referring to, or naming something or someone, especially briefly or ‘cursorily.’” I emphasis the latter point, cursorily, which is, itself, defined as: quickly, without attention to detail.
V.b Pro attempts to change that to which he agreed to by acceptance of this debate as is. His ¶’s 5, 6, suggest to modify the function of the debate because he objects to “words” of the Constitution in favor of its “context.” No. That suggestion is not an acceptable debate action. As-is, when accepted, is the “fair and balanced” desired; this one stands as is. There is fair balance in the language of the US Constitution that refers to God without detail. I deny Pro’s accusation of truism.
V.b.1 Pro offered a non-cursory definition by saying in his R1 ¶6: “Con must show that the US Constitution mentions Lord or God. The natural assumption may be to assume a christian god, but Con clarifies this is not the case and is actually broader than that. Which is entirely vague.” Then Pro offers in ¶9: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu.” ‘Vague’ would seem to agree with ‘cursorily,’ but it appears Pro prefers specifics, [more requested change] which do not fit “mention’s” definition. I accept vague, thanks, because I am certain the Framers intended a wide scope beyond Pro’s limit of 4 “gods.” How about Wiccan? Sure; and a 5th? More? Why not? That fits the 1A’s words.
V.c Pro further insists I “must” prove the US Constitution refers to, as quoted from Pro’s R1 in my V.b.1, above,… a string-of-traits-god that “rules the universe,” and was “granted birth-right authority.” If I fall short, I lose? [Pro, R1, ¶12] Pardon my interruption, but Pro was not the author of this debate Resolution nor Description, but is the other participant in a debate that was proposed, resolved, and described by me, and, therefore, Pro is not authorized to dictate the specifics of my burdens of proof [BoP]. Whereas, as instigator, I have them generally defined. They are agreed to as documented in the Resolution and Description as accepted by Pro.
VI Rebuttal: Necessity of God
VI.a Some may protest that this “make mention of God” does not count because there is no religious significance to the mention I’ve cited in R1. I refer to the Resolution, which is, after all, the point of debate, regardless of Pro’s attempt at truism, change, and let alone any a.k.a.’s. The Description did not assign religious importance to the topic, although arguments are free to do so, as noted in my R1. In no wise does the Resolution, Description, or my Round 1, indicate to mean by my “vague” that Article VII is the only “mention of God or Lord;” cursory words, after all. Further, I challenge an explanation of what is “dirty and fighting and unfair” [from Pro’s accusation in R1, ¶4] in my language within this debate.
VI.a.1 That God represents religion is a foregone, and dependable circumstance. That God can represent a secular territory is, however, a matter separate from religion, and requires that one take a step entirely out of religion into a secular environment with the effect, generally, of embracing an ontological argument that insists on God’s necessity of existence to demonstrate his existence at all; something not often considered in a secular sense. Within context of the US Constitution, this is sensible.
VI.a.2 Consider the following syllogism:
“P1 It is at least possible for God to exist.
“P2 If God’s existence is possible, then necessarily, God does exist.
“C. Therefore, necessarily, God exists.”[12]
VI.a.2.A Possibility is a territory in which secular agnostics are in a comfort zone. Atheists may find this territory uncomfortable, even in a secular sense. Necessity becomes the primary conversion point. As God can be demonstrated as necessary, even in a modern world where religion tends to be lacking in necessity, because we are no longer superstitious about observed natural phenomena that were once only explained by a God figure, then God can exist for a purposeful necessity, such as assuring that mortal life on Earth will extend beyond death in some other realm of existence, and not total oblivion. This is not necessarily exclusive to religion. Typically, we do not know how to accomplish that in an entirely secular realm without ontological argument.
VI.a.3 Some may have us ignore the Constitution’s Article VII as being a non-active Article. Whether the Article is completely inactive at present is beside the point of the Resolution. There are no religious points of necessity, and the Constitution not only does not have them, but disallows them within its words, though it can be informative argument: There is more to mortal life than random chance; a common explanation of life on Earth. The hedonist would argue that since life is fleeting, and perhaps non-existent following death, what matter if we abuse constitutional principles? The matter is, the Constitution disallows that, too. Something about being “supreme law,” even if not written by a supreme being. Nor was any holy writ known by this debate participant.
VI.b. I challenge a question that turns on the success of the due process of US Constitutional fame: From whence do we derive due process? The source is higher than we may think. We often have pointed to the Magna Carta, clause 39 [13], the product of the early 16th century. But that’s when, not where. See XIII, below.
VII Rebuttal: The Journal of the American Revolution
VII.a I appreciate Pro’s final R1 reference [Last ¶] to The Journal of the American Revolution. I am familiar with this website[14], but, unfortunately, they did not contribute to writing the Constitution, and I deny their inference that they did. They claim the Constitution “contains no reference to God”[15] I demonstrated the reference in R1, ¶II.b. But there is more…
VIII Argument: Further “mention” of God in the U.S. Constitution
VIII.a Refer to the Preamble; Jimmy Madison’s introduction to the Constitution; the first words of the Document: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[16] A previous question [or two] are repeated [R1, III.1]: “Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that…” Consider: “Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process.”[17] The Constitution is a GPS for it.
VIII.b More: 2 Kings 20: 1 “…the prophet Isaiah… came to [Hezekiah], and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die…”[18] With this advice in mind, consider the original organization of the U.S. Senate, which members’ terms were established at every six years. However, that first organization was immediately segregated into 3 roughly equal “classes”[19]. There were 26 Senators, and they ordered into classes of 9, 9, and 8 [26, total], and their initial terms would, by class, be of 2, 4 and 6 years, thus electing only 1/3 of the entire body every six years following in the second year from this first organization; setting the Senate’s “house in order” for future operation.
VIII.b.1 More: Article I, Sections 4, 5, & 6 established still more fed government “order.” Sections 8, 9 established an order to the legislative scope of Congress. Section 10 established order for the States. Thus, the Legislative Branch established its “order.”
VIII.b.2 More: Articles II & III established order for the Executive and Judicial branches. Article IV set further order to the States. Article V ordered the government to allow “inalienable rights”[20] to the People. Therefore, a government “house in order.” Rather god-like, as the Resolution implies.
VIII.c More: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[21] Often, people ignore the 2nd phrase in order to justify the first. They are both of equal strength, and both devoted to any religion [even if the target of devotion is Satan, or the Blue Spaghetti Monster], and not any specified one to which Pro suggests I am restricted by BoP. In his own instigated debate, sure, but not in this one.
VIII.d Further, I will direct you to investigate Amendments VI, IX, XIII, XIV, & XIX, at least.
VIII.e Further, from still other holy writ, from the Qu’ran: “…and that each man shall be judged by his own labors; that no soul shall bear another’s burden, and that each man will be judged by his own labors…”[22] And further, from the Doctrine and Covenants: “And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.”[23]
VIII.f Further, to the Magna Carta, Clause 39[13], the Bible, Matthew 5-7[24], and the Egyptian Book of the Dead[25]: “Beautiful in the boat of millions of years, the seat of peace for doing what is right and true among the favored ones to make the bark of the sun great to sail forth the right and truth.”[25], the latter three offer sourcing of the right of due process, not merely a “modern”constitutional invention. Relative to the last reference [25], consider that this is not merely appeal to a god [the eye of Ra] for the mortal due process against accusation of a person’s faults, but for that person’s immortal soul. The appeal of due process functions not just for us, in this 3rd millennium C.E., but to the ancient Egyptians of 2 millennia B.C.E. How about a scope of 5,000 years of due process for billions upon billions of us benefitting from multiple gods some of us in society still revere and worship for these blessings, such as the US Constitution.
IX Conclusion: A burden proved
IX.a Not have I offered singular cursory mention, as Pro charged, but eleven additional examples of cursory mentions of God in and by the US Constitution, and four sources from elsewhere, to satisfy my burden to establish that the Resolution is false; God is not just mentioned, but integral to the US Constitution. So much for Pro’s singular truism accusation.
Thank you for your attention. To Pro for R3 [rebuttals only].
Sources:
[12] https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/12/03/modal-ontological-arguments/
[13] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[14] https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/
[15] ibid
[16] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
[17] Jim Bouchard, https://www.primermagazine.com/2009/learn/think-like-a-black-belt-perfection-is-not-a-destination-its-a-never-ending-process#:~:text=on a Budget-,Think Like a Black Belt: Perfection is Not a Destination,steps in the right direction.
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Kings 20: 1
[19] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 2 [also, Articles II, III, IV, V, etc.]
[20] Declaration of Independence
[21] U.S. Constitution, Ist Amendment
[22] Quran, 53: 39
[23] Doctrine & Covenants 88: 125
[24] Holy Bible [KJV], Matthew 5-7
[25] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXXVII, pg. 242
Parody my arse. Yes, I know parody.
When you quote, quote, do not transliterate by whim of parody. That is the glaring mistake that claptrap House member from House 30 Calif, Adam Schiff made is his "parody" of Trump in that House Rules violating !st Impeachment so poorly overseen by Pelosi. Can't keep her own Rules [IX, X, XI], and allowed her managers the same poor keeping of congressional rules. Get it? Yet? Hell, even theives have some honor.
And, all your "parodies" make the wrong assumptions. Lke I said, stay in your own head; you don't know mine. Not a clue, my friend.
Hint: Yes, university coursework in Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the bio does not say is an additional personal study of the last 50 years. Get it? Nope.
must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.
"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.
I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.
Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.
Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?
I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]
1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]
I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]
1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.
1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.
II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:
II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]
II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.
III Conclusion: A warning
III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.
III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.
III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.
Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.
Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.
Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "
And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?
Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.
Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Round 1
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?
I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]
I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.
I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”
I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.
1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]
I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?
II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”
II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.
III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.
III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?
IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]
IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.
IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.
IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:
IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.
V Conclusion
V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.
Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid
You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."
You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?
All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.
Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.
Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.
Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.
notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.
I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem
Currently, I'm having a technical problem in the Debate section: I cannot enter any text in the argument rounds. Moderation is looking into it, but so far, has not been able to resolve the issue. I've had one recent debate, and had to copy/paste my arguments/sources of each round from my Apple Pages app for each round, which makes it difficult for an opponent and for voters to switch back and forth from comments to the arguments page. That's more trouble than it's worth. Otherwise, I'd be glad to engage a debate.
Personally, I find the debate over the interpretation of Matthew 16: 15-18 to be a grammatic squabble that is actually too simple by interpretation of the passage in Greek [probably it's first language as written], then translated to Latin, in the 4th century, and, ultimately, English [in the 17th century]. I have a formal education in Greek, but none but personal research in Latin; English is my mother tongue, and I have a recently earned baccalaureate in linguistics [mostly English]
The issue entered by Pro and Con is the interpretation of Peter [Πετρος] being called "the rock," [Πετρα] and, as such, whether he is "the foundation of the church." [verse 18] But everyone ignores the trailing reference at tree end of the verse following :the gates of hell shall not prevail against..." the word following is a 3rd person singular pronoun that, if it referred to Peter, would be "you" [συ], which is a 2nd person singular pronoun. Biut, no, the 3rd person singular pronoun is "it," which the Greeks, and the English [but not dependably in Latin] use as a neutered pronoun referring to inanimate objects and non-human animals. Sorry, but I believe the "it" refers back to verse 15's [ἀπεκάλυψέν], "revealed," as in "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." Revelation [that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God] is the "it" that is the foundation of the church. There is no reference to a "pope" nor a "papacy" existing in any translation of biblical text, not in Greek, not the Latin Vulgate, nor in your cited NRSV, nor my KJV, nor any other English translation as offered by https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/16.htm . While both participants speck to "revelation" in their arguments, neither refers to this specific revelation from God to Peter, nor that it plays a role as foundation of the church. I am too jaded by this grammar, and the linkage of revelation to see any way to vote on this debate for either side. Words do mean things, and their use in syntax is meaningful and informative, particularly when talking about translated works such as is the Bible.
I should have added in my vote that Pro's argument in R1 included mention that the description of creation in Genesis, which Pro cites, indicates that God created heaven and earth, but did not describe how it was done. This is an adequate description by Pro that evolution, itself, may have played a part in the creative process.
I would add the possibility that creation continues to this day by that means, and I see no contradiction biblically to refute the possibility, but do not make that last comment a feature of my vote because it is conjecture, and Pro did not specifically make that argument.
Jesus has no genetic material from Joseph, while he does from Mary. Joseph and Mary were cousins of some removal from one another, but both still of the house of Judah. But since Jesus had no genetic tie to Joseph, he is of some other blood, as well as from Mary, therefore not just of Judah [therefore, not just a Jew]. We have no idea of what genetics is God the Father, the true father of the flesh of Jesus Christ.
Now that I’ve voted, I thought I’d expand with an explanation of the “caution.” You wasted R2 with a question of clarification that ought to have been in comments. Don’t waste a round like that. You could have pressed your R1 argument of other prevailing agents that relieve personal accountability for actions as you argued in R1 and R3, and found a source or two to underpin the argument. Good work, though. Well done.
I perceived your entire argument set over three rounds of “X’s don’t do do Y” when, in fact, that kind of generalization is an excuse to be
1. Authoritative
2. Lacking in supporting data
3. Unwilling to allow for individual, independent thought and action (belief and practice, if you will).
Further, your Resolution insisted on “the direct inverse of everything Christian,” not just several or most things. Every little dogma must directly oppose Christianity when, in fact, Islam has the Hadith #13 (my R1) which was never rebutted to combat the golden rule, or your R2 argument of “fatted Christians” (another generalization not describing all Christian’s when “all” is your Resolution’s threshold.) Hence my unrebutted claim, with supporting source reference, of fatted vegans, thus again defeating your Resolution of “everything.” “Everything” was your BoP. It failed.
Seems to me Savant’s vote misinterprets the Resolution as a moral dilemma, good v. bad, when it states being “the direct inverse of everything” which is neither good or bad, but opposed in every condition when even atheism and Christianity believe and practice identical principles, such as the golden rule, which fails the Resolution.
No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not exclusive to America, although established here in 1830, but is found in over 160 countries, and publishes it's unique scriptures [Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price] in over 100 languages.
Of course USA has been less Christian on any level, not just fundamental, than Europe simply because USA has existed for less than 250 years, while Europe has existed well over a millennia, with Christianity being significantly older than either. No concession necessary; that's just fact. On the other hand, your could argue that the population of EU is 449M, of which 64% are Christian [287M], while the US population is 340M, with 62% being Christian = 211M. You win, again with no philosophic discussion ever mentioned.
Yes, actually, for all intents, water, at least as a liquid, is always wet, in spite of my anally-retentive citation that it takes 6 molecules for water to begin to be wet. The other side of that coin is that there are, in the "average" drop of water, 1.2 +E 21 [1.2 sextillion] molecules.
All you say is true, except when there are only 5 or fewer molecules of water - an impractical condition, I admit, but it is a factual limitation to wetness.
Clausewitzian appears to be stuck in the mud of only my first round, but I'm not the one with a tossed bucket of water.
notice to all:
I heve posted my R3 below, in reverse order, in posts 27, 26, 25. pls read in that order
Round 3 05/5/2025
X Rebuttal: Pro Claims from R3
X.a Pro’s Resolution and Description, and BoP [burden of proof] are understood, because it is spelled out in both sections; loosely in the Resolution as the economy being negatively affected just by Trump tariffs, and in more detail as negatively affected just by Trump tariffs in the Description. No, I don’t see detail in either, either. What I see is what I’ve already argued in R1 and R2: Pro’s Resolution and Description are short on detail. In fact, Pro’s only detailed offer is [Description]: “Use any economic indicator you want. I won’t provide a metric for “negative economic effect” because I leave that up to the debater.”
X.a.1 Pro will not offer a metric to prove his BoP? That was the claim… No need? Curious perspective. Most who debate intend to have burdens of proof to argue.
X.a.2 I presume “the debater” means me, Con. And I also read that as giving me both BoPs as a burden to argue his negatives and my alleged positives. Thanks. Oh, but that darn Resolution does not imply that I must argue positives. Its implication is only that I defeat the proposal that the economy “tanked,” and only due to Trump tariffs of the second term. I argued by his suggestion, anyway. See below. And as my choice of “metric,” I suggested several in R1 [gold, silver, Apple [NASDAQ], and Amazon [NYSE]]. In R2, I narrowed that to gold [although right now, all are doing very well as my primary argument [thanks]. I realized I needed but one example to defeat the Resolution.[20]
X.b So, gold, per ounce, on close of 4/2 3,120 [rounded - USD]
[day of Trump tariff notice]
4/3 3,118 [loss, $2 per share]
4/4 2,054 [loss, $66; total loss $68]
4/7 2,014 [loss, $50; total loss $118]
4/12 3,204 [gain, $190; all loss recovered]
[day I accepted debate]
4/15 3,219 [ day after Pontiff hospitalized]
4/22 3,433 [day after Pontiff dies, record day]
5/2 3,249 [close of week trading]
[gain total: $129 per share from 4/2]
X.b.1 I chose a metric that defeats Pro’s Resolution. While there was a 5-day loss of $118 [all of 3.8% - a “massive sell off”accordions to Pro], gold regained all loss to $3,204 by the 10th day [4/12], and, as of close of last week, 5/2, a further gain to $3,249, $129 above 4/2. My math may be checked, but I cannot call +$84 after 10 days, or +$129 after
XI Conclusion
XI.a Over a more sensible market view than ten days, we see a mores realistic result, and recall that I suggested another view in my R2, VII,a.2 re: my gold investment: “…it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, precious metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down.” However, that longer view of the stock market is also revealing. Over that same 50 years, this insignificant bump of Pro’s “massive sell off” is invisbje. No, Pro did not claim Donald Trump has had effect on the market for 50 years, he did not need to say so in his R3, but, on the other hand, perhaps Pro ought to have at least taken the view. “Massive sell off” would be worded by softer terms.
XI.b Pro’s R3 claim: “You have a BOP to prove that Trump’s tariffs had a positive effect…” is as good a place to conclude as any. Well, on the day I accepted this debate, 4/12… I’ll just refer you to my argument, above, R3, X.b - X.d, the gold price dailies from 4/2 to 5/2. Some days were excluded as not relevant. I promise there are no gains or losses above or below these days represented. And, as Pro has agreed, day-trading is like gambling; and I’ll add that the odds are likely against us. So, why is Pro’s scope of this debate about half of even 30 days, let alone since 1/20/2025; Trump’s 2nd term inauguration?
XI.c Looks like a positive effect to me, but I do not claim that it was Trump effect for any reason, just as my R2, and R3, have noted, and as I quoted, “the Market is fickle.”
XI.d I conclude that I wish the price of gold is as claimed by Pro, having started investing years ago at $400 per ounce! WOW! I’m not just rich; I’m a 1-percenter!!! Nope, no such luck.
I also conclude the Resolution fails, anyway. Thank you to Moozer for the debate, and to readers, especially those who vote.
Sources:
[20] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/gold-prices?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADt5-AJPo0SqgYeTOqR65PK6-9xm9&gclid=Cj0KCQjwoNzABhDbARIsALfY8VMVndA2GNHm5Rg1mT9eIkqhWelU-G7tEQLqes8aoqv9xXRfoSIV62saAt3SEALw_wcB
Thanks. I'll re-vote
"omnipotence" needs no qualification of "maximally" or any other descriptive. The word, itself, by its Latin root, implies all [omni] power [potence]. You're merely creating verbosity.
And, saying that god [any] is "omnipotent" does not necessarily mean he/she acts omnipotently all the time. I suspect god acts with only the prudent power required to accomplish a given task. I suggest, for example, that it does not take omnipotence to plant seeds, whereas, organizing energy and matter from chaos to order just might. You, yourself, possess a certain power. Do you use all of it all the time? No? Then, why should god?
Since both parties forfeited, this debate is likely to end with zero votes, as it should. This was a good topic of debate, but is poorly lacking in definitions, and in prep time for arguments.
And, biologically, though I agree with Pro that only two sexes/genders exist, that the genitals are definitive sex identifiers is not correct; they're merely convenient since the stats are, according to the Library of Medicine [in the U.S.], that 99.99999993 percent of the world's human population are either XX or XY, and that it is actually the set of gonads, either ovaries or testes, that actually determine sex/gender, and not the genitals [and certainly not the choosing brain], of which a very small percentage of us have both, but only one set of gonads to a customer - 100% of us.
Barney, may I request that my vote either be deleted to re-enter my intent, or... It is my choice that Pro win the debate, but the last two mentions of Con in my vote should have been for Pro, not Con. If you can just change those last two references that Pro wins the debate, I would appreciate it it. I've indicated in the actual vote that Con wins, but that's wrong, too. Damn, don't know what I'm thinking!
I have poised my R2 argument, but forgot to advise. The clock is still on me, so, no time lost on your side.
FYI, I have posted my R3
Welcome to Round 3 [05/01/2025]
X Rebuttal: A limited debate
X.a I had a different R3 planned, but I am shocked by Pro’s R2, line 2: “Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.” That is a fair statement, but, only applicable prior to accepting the debate. Pro did not close with any mention of the debate being unfair. Pro accepted this debate as is. I cite from DebateArt Information Center, Debates: “Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.”[26] Two of the locked features are the Resolution and Description. The time to request alteration of them is during the Challenge phase via Comments, but not after the debate has begun; in this case, on 4/21; 8 days prior to Pro’s rule-change demand. That is “not fair.” Refer to my R2, V [all sub-¶s, V.a - V.c]. I did not define God, nor assign attributes, including to what religion he bears allegiance, if any.
X.b Pro’s R2, line 3; “Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.” Debate rules are truisms? My, but how that definition inflates. My R2, Section V rebutted Pro’s charge of “truism.” I stand on that rebuttal. I also rebutted in R2, Section VIII, and did not begin or end my arguments in R1 with my single reference to Article VII. Let my R2, Section VIII have its full weight of added argumentation, to which I note, with the exception of my VIII.b.2, Pro did not rebut.
X.b.1 Pro said, re: my VIII.b.2, “Con is not arguing how the context implies religious significance or god of any sort, he has essentially given up on proving his BOP and conceded the resolution. “ I remind of the Resolution and Description: referring readers to these as given on the top page of this Debate #6075 .
X.b.1.A I’ll remind of a statement in the Description, and now underlined for emphasis: “…no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration… This is a generic debate which does not exclude atheists or agnostics from accepting the debate because belief in, or acknowledgement of the subject is not required…
X.b.1.B This in no way implies that religious argument cannot be made, and I did so in R2, citing the Holy Bible, the Qu’ran, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
X.b.2 It is Pro who suggests, after acceptance, to limit this debate: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.” Compare this quote to the Resolution and Description/definition.
Do they match? No.
Did the Resolution even suggest that God created and rules the universe? No.
Does the Description define God by any traits or birthrights? No.
Is Pro the initiator? No.
Has the true initiator conceded? Hell, no.
Is the Pro suggestion that the initiator, Con, concede a fair debate argument? No.
Has Con suggested Pro concede after the latter’s demand that Con concede? No.
XI Rebuttal: A limited-technicality
XI.a Pro’s R1 2nd ¶ accused my “…technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality.” Pro points to my reference to the US Constitution’s Article VII “the year of our Lord…” as my only possible argument. Recall my R2 rebuttals, V, VI, VII, and VIII, which added references from nearly the full balance of constitutional Articles, and “at least” six added Amendments which carry cursory, godly advice, about eleven separate arguments with references. There were added supporting references from various holy writ as specified above, X.b.1.B. I might accept the single reference of Article VII is a “technicality,” on the basis of which Pro charged that I expect to win the debate. I never said that. I am using all three rounds; two for argument; two for rebuttal. These should not be considered a “technicality.”
XI.b Pro’s R2, 4th line claimed: “Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.” New or interesting? Can Pro, or readers, truly say they are not moved by revealing, as I did in my R2, VIII.f, that such a grand concept as due process, enshrined in the US Constitution, finds relevance in an antiquated source of gods interacting with man with such a gift as old as the 3rd millennium B.C.E, in E.A. Wallis Budge’s translation/transliteration of Ani’s The Egyptian Book of the Dead [R2, [25]]; rites that age still older by two to three millennia before being documented by Ani, the scribe.[27] Who among you is so intimately familiar with these antiquities? Truism? No, but absolutely true. Due process brought to and for man by gods named Osiris, Thoth, and Horus, Ra, and even Isis, etc… By the time our boy, Jimmy Madison came along, it was already an ancient gift of gods. It was ancient even to Genesis.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XII.a From my debate Description: “This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of ‘Lord,’ or ‘God,’ so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration.” I did this to avoid what Pro argued, anyway, in his R1, ¶9, that my BoP was to prove a god of specific religion; but only from a choice among four. This is an attempt to impose limitation on me to one of the four types, violating the open-season, unlimited Resolution and Description.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XIII Rebuttal: A limited alleged kritik
XIII.a Pro made reference to “kritik,”[R1, ¶3] citing the DebateArt.com “Kritik Guide.”[28] Its four categories are [from which I first quote directly in each ¶ below]:
XIII.a.1 “Analysis: The main complaint:” Pro attempts to limit Con’s argument to a single argument that could not be expanded, making Pro’s own case a failed kritik. Refer to my R2, or its summary above, XI.a, relative to added arguments beyond Pro’s alleged “technicality” of my R1 alleged “truism.”
XIII.a.2 “Link: Specific element of the opponent’s case:” Pro said, “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu [sic] and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.”[29] However, Pro can make no reference to any citation of mine claiming any demonstrative attributes or allegiances of/to God relative to creation nor rule; only that he exists, and, I suggested in argument [R2, VI.a.2.A] that he assures our existence after death as an ontological proof of his existence.
XIII.a.3 “Implication: The damage done if the kritik is ignored:” We often fail by arguing our own limitations when thinking we identify those of others, but we are boxed by them. Consider: “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”[30] An alleged Oscar Wilde quote is relevant when occupying someone else’s head: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”[31] “Physician, heal thyself”[32] is useful warning when we dare suggest another begin their debate by “…fire all of your guns at once and explode into space…” [not quoted because Pro argued this lyric, but because it’s a Steppenwolf lyric, deserving citation[33]. I repeat: I did not end my argument against the Resolution in R1, nor only by Article VII of the US Constitution. No, my arguments, and attending source references average in number much more than the number of rounds. So, even if voters agree my R1 argument of Article VII fails to impress, the volume of other arguments that avoided successful rebuttal by Pro are to be considered for merit by voters to defeat the Resolution.
XIII.a.4 “What better solution the kritik suggests:” Do not suggest a debate opponent is limited to a single argument only because it is overly obvious. That limitation, itself, is a boxed truism shown to be a flag’s wind flagging, particularly when the claim is accused of the first round of a multi-round debate; by Pro declaring personal victory, and the opponent’s defeat. It may ultimately bite back. Does attempt to change the parameters of a debate after accepting it potentially become its own truism?
XIV Conclusion: A burden lifted
XIV.a By calling my first argument a truism, then alleging I had no other, then suggesting the debate protocol be changed [alleging I have no more to say] then floating a modern-day revolution as expertise of constitutional intent when its words simply mean what they say, I suggest my 2 rounds of argument, and 2 rounds of rebuttal, have successfully taken flight.
XIX.b No, my rounds of argument and rebuttal did not allege that “Lord,” or “God” is not specifically referenced in the Constitution other than in Article VII, but denial of specific reference was not Con’s BoP of the Resolution nor Description. The Being[s] “mentioned” by reference to principles he/they suggest, such as “due process,” and they are not the the godly Beings of any specific religion, but of all, is demonstrated in my arguments/rebutals, multiple times.
Adieu.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the debate, and readers for reading it. I encourage our readers to render thoughtful voting based on sourced evidence within the accepted debate, when accepted, and without attempted alteration after acceptance.
Sources:
[26] https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
[27] https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/egyptian-book-dead#:~:text=A document that changed the,equipment, by about 1600 BCE.
[28] https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
[29] Debate #6075, Pro R1, ¶9
[30] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 4
[31] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/20/be-yourself/
[32] Holy Bible [KJV] Luke 4: 23
[33] Steppenwolf, “Born to be Wild,” Mars Bonfire, Dunhill/RCA, 1968
Con Round 2 04/29/2025
VI Rebuttal: Various Pro Claims from R1
VI.a Stock Market: Tracking dailies of NYSE is not productive since its intent is a long-term investment strategy.[12] Pro’s R1 argument, continued in R2, maintains that dailies are still valid to prove the effect of Trump tariffs imposed not just in his 2nd term, but just since April, but offers no back-up support by credible sourcing to prove the BoP. This is only by Pro’s personal opinion. Since the stock market is Pro’s number one factor Resolution’s primary subject, economy, one should presume it have substantiation of just Trump cause by more than opinion, but by a credible evidence, which must be more than a daily media source; ex: NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.
VI.b Consumer Burden: Perennial year-over-year trade imbalance [more imports to US from trade partners than US exports to trade partners] with most of our top 10 trading partners having the U.S. in a trade deficit. That loss is, itself, a drain on the consumer.
The alleged Trump effect of tariffs from just three weeks ago as an exclusively 2nd-term issue is virtually impossible to separately quantify. See source reference [15] when addressed in section IX]. This was not addressed in Pro’s R2.
VI.c Macroeconomic Consequence: “The balance of trade is one of the key components of a country’s gross domestic product [GDP].”[13] A perennial trade deficit, which has been our US experience since WWII [14], lowers the US real GDP. The issue has existed far longer [since post WWII] than Trump’s 2nd term tariff proposals. Pro cannot quantify separate effect from WWII and a comparatively brief effect of Trump’s tariff activity since 4/2, let alone his brief second term. GDP is not a feature whose data is reactive to just a few days of tracking, as is the necessary model for Pro’s Resolution.
VI.d Retaliation: Pro claimed, “Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true,” but did not bother to back-up the claim with credible sourcing. Another unsubstantiated opinion. It is obvious hearsay due to the trade imbalance we have with top-ten trading partners, and not exclusively due [if at all] to second-term Trump-proposed tariffs. [See source citation in R1 rebuttal II.a [6]] This was not rebutted in Pro’s R2 but for the above quoted Pro claim.
VII Rebuttal: Pro R2
VII.a Reaction of the Market: Is it due to Trump tariffs, or by nervous marketeers reacting to other NYSE influences [see R2, VIII.a.3]? Pro continues to insist that the NYSE, et al, reaction by lost points since first week of April is all due to Trump tariffs, but has yet to back up his claim by any credible source. I call that a failed argument.
VII.a.1 Pro’s R2, ¶3 rebuts my personal-experience argument re: precious metal investments and wants evidence Trump is responsible for its effect on the economy. I am not arguing Trump is responsible for my precious metals gains over the last 50 years; his second term began only 100 days ago; or, only four weeks to use Pro’s updated calendar since 4/2. I am claiming only that precious metals are a more stable investment than the NYSE whether Trump has influence, or not. Refer to VI.a.1, above.
VII.a.2 Pro’s R2, ¶4 rebuts my personal experience “of 1 data point.” No, it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down, but, again, Pro has not yet provided any credible source that assures Trump is responsible for 50 years of up/down pricing. I argue it is nervous investors selling, that causes market downs for which I have demonstrated credible sourcing [R1, [6]].
VII.a.3 Pro R2, ¶5 claims “…gold prices actually did go down during the tariff announcement on the fourth. They came back, but it still goes to show that the Tariffs had a negative effect.” But Pro claims the neg effect is by unique Trump effect, but offers no credible back-up for the claim. Again, I maintain it is nervous reaction by investors, just as they also did last Monday, 4/21. Was this also due to Trump tariffs? No, it was nervous reaction to the death of Pope Francis. Next week, it may react negatively to black smoke from St. Peter’s Square. The week after that, perhaps to white smoke from St. Peter’s Square, and then the Elon Musk departure from direct management of DOGE… then there’s the Putin-Zelensky dance… and Supreme Court decisions… and then some claim by Occasional Cortex [my moniker for AOC] that barstools qualify for consumer tax rebates. A commentary by one financial advisement group settles the controversy: “Stock markets are fickle.”[15]
VII.a.4 Pro R2, ¶6 claims “…you [meaning me, Con] still haven’t proven that this metric went down due to tariffs and second, even if tariffs did help gold and silver, you’d have to show that gold and silver have a bigger effect on the economy than GDP.” Sorry, it is not my BoP to prove the market declined due to tariffs; that is Pro’s claimed BoP. And, my read of the Resolution and Description, I have no BoP to prove effect of any investment on GDP. Pro apparently wants me to share his head. No thanks; got my own.
VII.a.5 Pro asked what I meant by my very positive results in stock investment, such as Apple. At Apple IPO offering in 1980, I purchased $500 of Apl stock. Since then, it has gained 249,900%[16], and no other investment I own has done nearly as well, but none are affected negatively over time, even in the last 4 weeks. You tell me why, but also tell me if I care that it lost a couple of percentages, but gained them back, plus, since 4/2. That is contrary to the Resolution.
VII.a.6 Pro closed R2 with the last 2 ¶s that appear to mimic my R1, IV.b, but not by quoting, and then turns it on me to prove his BoP. I have no need nor desire to prove Pro’s BoP for him. [More head sharing?] That’s on him.
VIII Argument: “Official” Tax Foundation Report
VIII.a The Tax Foundation website[17] keeps a running “record” [i.e., assumed facts] of the alleged Trump second-term proposed tariffs, but takes the liberty of ignoring that, although delays have been announced, and the periodically updated timeline does acknowledge delays, the report still uses such language in “Key Findings” as “The weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports WILL RISE to 25.8 percent under the tariffs…” Note the absolutism of “will rise” when previously acknowledging delays, which will always alter consequences. That is inaccurate reporting of assumed future conditions, in spite of current facts and thus are not applicable future “facts.” Any statistical model must acknowledge that conditionals affect future probabilities within a confidence level that may not achieve the statistical expectation of 95% minimum.[18] That is inaccurate modeling, and does not conform to appropriate design of experiments. Thus, it is to be avoided.[19]
IX Conclusion
IX.a I conclude that Pro’s two rounds of argument and his 2nd round rebuttals fail to demonstrate Pro’s Resolution of economic negativity exclusively due to the effect of Trump tariffs. My first and second round arguments, and rebuttals demonstrate the Resolution is false due to longer-standing issues than Trump’s 2nd term, and are impossible to segregate and quantify as exclusively due to Trump, as the Resolution claims. Thank you for your continued attention.
Best wishes to Pro for R3.
Sources:
[12] See my R1 rebuttal III.a, b; IV.b
[13] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061515/what-impact-does-balance-trade-have-gdp-calculations.asp
[14] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/may/historical-u-s-trade-deficits
[15] https://www.baileywealthadvisors.com/blog/stock-markets-are-fickle
[16] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/apple-ipo-anniversary-apple-stock-price-surge-a-1000-investment-44-years-ago-would-have-made-your-richer-by-249900-by-now/articleshow/116285177.cms?from=mdr
[17] https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/#timeline
[18] Quality Council of Indiana, “CSSBB [Certified Six Sigma Black Belt] Primer,” IN, 2022
[19] fauxlaw is an ASQ- Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, a recognized expert in statistical modeling and design of experiments.
This debate so far ignores a curious science that ought to be well understood by anyone having taken high school chemistry - at leased when minors' education actually educated rather than dictated and manipulated. Water, H2O, is a molecule made of two combined gasses, both of which have the property of "dry." And, in fact, up to five water molecules grouped together are dry. When a sixth molecule is added to the 5, they are then wet, and any more molecules added to it become wet. Water can be frozen to a temperature that, if the temp is maintained, the ice is dry. Steam is dry unless there are embedded water drops in the steam.
However, not all liquid elements are wet on the condition that "wetness" makes other elements damp or soaked. Liquid gold, for example , and many other liquid metals, are not wet by the damp or soaked condition and do not dampen or soak other "dry" elements. Liquid water, for example, spilled on most surfaces [steel, aluminum, glazed tile, etc], do not dampen or soak those materials. When wiped away completely, the surface is dry. Wetness is a matter of surface tension of water. On a sheet of drywall, for example, it may be resistant to dampening for a short period, but longer term exposure will ultimately dampen or soak it.
Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks.
Update of a minor error in my posts 32, 33, 34 comprising my R2 rebuttal/argument: : for the line following my last entry, [#32 - they run in reverse order, 34, 33, 32] R2, IX.a, I make reference to pro taking R3. Pls. read that as R2. Sorry.
Welcome to Round 2 [04/25/2025]
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for your R1.
V Rebuttal: The Alternative “Truism”
V.a Pro accused a “truism;” by me; that I set a trap for this debate in citing the U.S. Constitution’s Article VII use of a common “mention” of “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…” That is the obvious mention. However, “mention” can be subtle. My Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines “mention” as speaking of, referring to, or naming something or someone, especially briefly or ‘cursorily.’” I emphasis the latter point, cursorily, which is, itself, defined as: quickly, without attention to detail.
V.b Pro attempts to change that to which he agreed to by acceptance of this debate as is. His ¶’s 5, 6, suggest to modify the function of the debate because he objects to “words” of the Constitution in favor of its “context.” No. That suggestion is not an acceptable debate action. As-is, when accepted, is the “fair and balanced” desired; this one stands as is. There is fair balance in the language of the US Constitution that refers to God without detail. I deny Pro’s accusation of truism.
V.b.1 Pro offered a non-cursory definition by saying in his R1 ¶6: “Con must show that the US Constitution mentions Lord or God. The natural assumption may be to assume a christian god, but Con clarifies this is not the case and is actually broader than that. Which is entirely vague.” Then Pro offers in ¶9: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu.” ‘Vague’ would seem to agree with ‘cursorily,’ but it appears Pro prefers specifics, [more requested change] which do not fit “mention’s” definition. I accept vague, thanks, because I am certain the Framers intended a wide scope beyond Pro’s limit of 4 “gods.” How about Wiccan? Sure; and a 5th? More? Why not? That fits the 1A’s words.
V.c Pro further insists I “must” prove the US Constitution refers to, as quoted from Pro’s R1 in my V.b.1, above,… a string-of-traits-god that “rules the universe,” and was “granted birth-right authority.” If I fall short, I lose? [Pro, R1, ¶12] Pardon my interruption, but Pro was not the author of this debate Resolution nor Description, but is the other participant in a debate that was proposed, resolved, and described by me, and, therefore, Pro is not authorized to dictate the specifics of my burdens of proof [BoP]. Whereas, as instigator, I have them generally defined. They are agreed to as documented in the Resolution and Description as accepted by Pro.
VI Rebuttal: Necessity of God
VI.a Some may protest that this “make mention of God” does not count because there is no religious significance to the mention I’ve cited in R1. I refer to the Resolution, which is, after all, the point of debate, regardless of Pro’s attempt at truism, change, and let alone any a.k.a.’s. The Description did not assign religious importance to the topic, although arguments are free to do so, as noted in my R1. In no wise does the Resolution, Description, or my Round 1, indicate to mean by my “vague” that Article VII is the only “mention of God or Lord;” cursory words, after all. Further, I challenge an explanation of what is “dirty and fighting and unfair” [from Pro’s accusation in R1, ¶4] in my language within this debate.
VI.a.1 That God represents religion is a foregone, and dependable circumstance. That God can represent a secular territory is, however, a matter separate from religion, and requires that one take a step entirely out of religion into a secular environment with the effect, generally, of embracing an ontological argument that insists on God’s necessity of existence to demonstrate his existence at all; something not often considered in a secular sense. Within context of the US Constitution, this is sensible.
VI.a.2 Consider the following syllogism:
“P1 It is at least possible for God to exist.
“P2 If God’s existence is possible, then necessarily, God does exist.
“C. Therefore, necessarily, God exists.”[12]
VI.a.2.A Possibility is a territory in which secular agnostics are in a comfort zone. Atheists may find this territory uncomfortable, even in a secular sense. Necessity becomes the primary conversion point. As God can be demonstrated as necessary, even in a modern world where religion tends to be lacking in necessity, because we are no longer superstitious about observed natural phenomena that were once only explained by a God figure, then God can exist for a purposeful necessity, such as assuring that mortal life on Earth will extend beyond death in some other realm of existence, and not total oblivion. This is not necessarily exclusive to religion. Typically, we do not know how to accomplish that in an entirely secular realm without ontological argument.
VI.a.3 Some may have us ignore the Constitution’s Article VII as being a non-active Article. Whether the Article is completely inactive at present is beside the point of the Resolution. There are no religious points of necessity, and the Constitution not only does not have them, but disallows them within its words, though it can be informative argument: There is more to mortal life than random chance; a common explanation of life on Earth. The hedonist would argue that since life is fleeting, and perhaps non-existent following death, what matter if we abuse constitutional principles? The matter is, the Constitution disallows that, too. Something about being “supreme law,” even if not written by a supreme being. Nor was any holy writ known by this debate participant.
VI.b. I challenge a question that turns on the success of the due process of US Constitutional fame: From whence do we derive due process? The source is higher than we may think. We often have pointed to the Magna Carta, clause 39 [13], the product of the early 16th century. But that’s when, not where. See XIII, below.
VII Rebuttal: The Journal of the American Revolution
VII.a I appreciate Pro’s final R1 reference [Last ¶] to The Journal of the American Revolution. I am familiar with this website[14], but, unfortunately, they did not contribute to writing the Constitution, and I deny their inference that they did. They claim the Constitution “contains no reference to God”[15] I demonstrated the reference in R1, ¶II.b. But there is more…
VIII Argument: Further “mention” of God in the U.S. Constitution
VIII.a Refer to the Preamble; Jimmy Madison’s introduction to the Constitution; the first words of the Document: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[16] A previous question [or two] are repeated [R1, III.1]: “Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that…” Consider: “Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process.”[17] The Constitution is a GPS for it.
VIII.b More: 2 Kings 20: 1 “…the prophet Isaiah… came to [Hezekiah], and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die…”[18] With this advice in mind, consider the original organization of the U.S. Senate, which members’ terms were established at every six years. However, that first organization was immediately segregated into 3 roughly equal “classes”[19]. There were 26 Senators, and they ordered into classes of 9, 9, and 8 [26, total], and their initial terms would, by class, be of 2, 4 and 6 years, thus electing only 1/3 of the entire body every six years following in the second year from this first organization; setting the Senate’s “house in order” for future operation.
VIII.b.1 More: Article I, Sections 4, 5, & 6 established still more fed government “order.” Sections 8, 9 established an order to the legislative scope of Congress. Section 10 established order for the States. Thus, the Legislative Branch established its “order.”
VIII.b.2 More: Articles II & III established order for the Executive and Judicial branches. Article IV set further order to the States. Article V ordered the government to allow “inalienable rights”[20] to the People. Therefore, a government “house in order.” Rather god-like, as the Resolution implies.
VIII.c More: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[21] Often, people ignore the 2nd phrase in order to justify the first. They are both of equal strength, and both devoted to any religion [even if the target of devotion is Satan, or the Blue Spaghetti Monster], and not any specified one to which Pro suggests I am restricted by BoP. In his own instigated debate, sure, but not in this one.
VIII.d Further, I will direct you to investigate Amendments VI, IX, XIII, XIV, & XIX, at least.
VIII.e Further, from still other holy writ, from the Qu’ran: “…and that each man shall be judged by his own labors; that no soul shall bear another’s burden, and that each man will be judged by his own labors…”[22] And further, from the Doctrine and Covenants: “And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.”[23]
VIII.f Further, to the Magna Carta, Clause 39[13], the Bible, Matthew 5-7[24], and the Egyptian Book of the Dead[25]: “Beautiful in the boat of millions of years, the seat of peace for doing what is right and true among the favored ones to make the bark of the sun great to sail forth the right and truth.”[25], the latter three offer sourcing of the right of due process, not merely a “modern”constitutional invention. Relative to the last reference [25], consider that this is not merely appeal to a god [the eye of Ra] for the mortal due process against accusation of a person’s faults, but for that person’s immortal soul. The appeal of due process functions not just for us, in this 3rd millennium C.E., but to the ancient Egyptians of 2 millennia B.C.E. How about a scope of 5,000 years of due process for billions upon billions of us benefitting from multiple gods some of us in society still revere and worship for these blessings, such as the US Constitution.
IX Conclusion: A burden proved
IX.a Not have I offered singular cursory mention, as Pro charged, but eleven additional examples of cursory mentions of God in and by the US Constitution, and four sources from elsewhere, to satisfy my burden to establish that the Resolution is false; God is not just mentioned, but integral to the US Constitution. So much for Pro’s singular truism accusation.
Thank you for your attention. To Pro for R3 [rebuttals only].
Sources:
[12] https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/12/03/modal-ontological-arguments/
[13] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[14] https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/
[15] ibid
[16] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
[17] Jim Bouchard, https://www.primermagazine.com/2009/learn/think-like-a-black-belt-perfection-is-not-a-destination-its-a-never-ending-process#:~:text=on a Budget-,Think Like a Black Belt: Perfection is Not a Destination,steps in the right direction.
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Kings 20: 1
[19] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 2 [also, Articles II, III, IV, V, etc.]
[20] Declaration of Independence
[21] U.S. Constitution, Ist Amendment
[22] Quran, 53: 39
[23] Doctrine & Covenants 88: 125
[24] Holy Bible [KJV], Matthew 5-7
[25] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXXVII, pg. 242
Parody my arse. Yes, I know parody.
When you quote, quote, do not transliterate by whim of parody. That is the glaring mistake that claptrap House member from House 30 Calif, Adam Schiff made is his "parody" of Trump in that House Rules violating !st Impeachment so poorly overseen by Pelosi. Can't keep her own Rules [IX, X, XI], and allowed her managers the same poor keeping of congressional rules. Get it? Yet? Hell, even theives have some honor.
And, all your "parodies" make the wrong assumptions. Lke I said, stay in your own head; you don't know mine. Not a clue, my friend.
Hint: Yes, university coursework in Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the bio does not say is an additional personal study of the last 50 years. Get it? Nope.
must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.
"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.
Assuming playing cards correctly:
Aye, there's the rub. looking forward to your R1, and the rest. Good hunting.
I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.
Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.
Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?
I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]
1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]
I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]
1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.
1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.
II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:
II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]
II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.
III Conclusion: A warning
III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.
III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.
III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.
Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.
Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.
Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "
And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?
Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.
My total R1 rebuttal/argument is in the previous posts, # 20 and #19
Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Round 1
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?
I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]
I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.
I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”
I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.
1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]
I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?
II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”
II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.
Sources
[1] https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/trade_by_industry_sectors
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-tariffs-live-markets-selloff-us-reciprocal-tariffs-kick-2025-04-09/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/a-timeline-of-trumps-tariff-actions-so-far
[6] https://www.streetinsider.com/Investing/Investment+commitments+in+U.S.+nears+$3+trillion+since+Trump+took+office/24538801.html
III Argument: Personal Experience
III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.
III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?
IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]
IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.
IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.
IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:
IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.
V Conclusion
V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.
Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid
You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."
You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?
All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.
Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.
Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.
Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.
Used to go backpacking with my brothers every summer in the High Sierras - long time ago. Those days are long behind me. Take your time.
notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.
Thanks. No prob with character limit. Shall we proceed?
I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem
Currently, I'm having a technical problem in the Debate section: I cannot enter any text in the argument rounds. Moderation is looking into it, but so far, has not been able to resolve the issue. I've had one recent debate, and had to copy/paste my arguments/sources of each round from my Apple Pages app for each round, which makes it difficult for an opponent and for voters to switch back and forth from comments to the arguments page. That's more trouble than it's worth. Otherwise, I'd be glad to engage a debate.
Personally, I find the debate over the interpretation of Matthew 16: 15-18 to be a grammatic squabble that is actually too simple by interpretation of the passage in Greek [probably it's first language as written], then translated to Latin, in the 4th century, and, ultimately, English [in the 17th century]. I have a formal education in Greek, but none but personal research in Latin; English is my mother tongue, and I have a recently earned baccalaureate in linguistics [mostly English]
The issue entered by Pro and Con is the interpretation of Peter [Πετρος] being called "the rock," [Πετρα] and, as such, whether he is "the foundation of the church." [verse 18] But everyone ignores the trailing reference at tree end of the verse following :the gates of hell shall not prevail against..." the word following is a 3rd person singular pronoun that, if it referred to Peter, would be "you" [συ], which is a 2nd person singular pronoun. Biut, no, the 3rd person singular pronoun is "it," which the Greeks, and the English [but not dependably in Latin] use as a neutered pronoun referring to inanimate objects and non-human animals. Sorry, but I believe the "it" refers back to verse 15's [ἀπεκάλυψέν], "revealed," as in "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." Revelation [that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God] is the "it" that is the foundation of the church. There is no reference to a "pope" nor a "papacy" existing in any translation of biblical text, not in Greek, not the Latin Vulgate, nor in your cited NRSV, nor my KJV, nor any other English translation as offered by https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/16.htm . While both participants speck to "revelation" in their arguments, neither refers to this specific revelation from God to Peter, nor that it plays a role as foundation of the church. I am too jaded by this grammar, and the linkage of revelation to see any way to vote on this debate for either side. Words do mean things, and their use in syntax is meaningful and informative, particularly when talking about translated works such as is the Bible.
Another non-existing debate just taking up space. Both participants lose
I should have added in my vote that Pro's argument in R1 included mention that the description of creation in Genesis, which Pro cites, indicates that God created heaven and earth, but did not describe how it was done. This is an adequate description by Pro that evolution, itself, may have played a part in the creative process.
I would add the possibility that creation continues to this day by that means, and I see no contradiction biblically to refute the possibility, but do not make that last comment a feature of my vote because it is conjecture, and Pro did not specifically make that argument.
Jesus has no genetic material from Joseph, while he does from Mary. Joseph and Mary were cousins of some removal from one another, but both still of the house of Judah. But since Jesus had no genetic tie to Joseph, he is of some other blood, as well as from Mary, therefore not just of Judah [therefore, not just a Jew]. We have no idea of what genetics is God the Father, the true father of the flesh of Jesus Christ.
Pro and Con just demonstrated they can utterly waste 16 hours. A less-than-useless use of time.
Now that I’ve voted, I thought I’d expand with an explanation of the “caution.” You wasted R2 with a question of clarification that ought to have been in comments. Don’t waste a round like that. You could have pressed your R1 argument of other prevailing agents that relieve personal accountability for actions as you argued in R1 and R3, and found a source or two to underpin the argument. Good work, though. Well done.
I perceived your entire argument set over three rounds of “X’s don’t do do Y” when, in fact, that kind of generalization is an excuse to be
1. Authoritative
2. Lacking in supporting data
3. Unwilling to allow for individual, independent thought and action (belief and practice, if you will).
Further, your Resolution insisted on “the direct inverse of everything Christian,” not just several or most things. Every little dogma must directly oppose Christianity when, in fact, Islam has the Hadith #13 (my R1) which was never rebutted to combat the golden rule, or your R2 argument of “fatted Christians” (another generalization not describing all Christian’s when “all” is your Resolution’s threshold.) Hence my unrebutted claim, with supporting source reference, of fatted vegans, thus again defeating your Resolution of “everything.” “Everything” was your BoP. It failed.
Seems to me Savant’s vote misinterprets the Resolution as a moral dilemma, good v. bad, when it states being “the direct inverse of everything” which is neither good or bad, but opposed in every condition when even atheism and Christianity believe and practice identical principles, such as the golden rule, which fails the Resolution.