In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
I recognize that Pro has yielded the debate, but one of his arguments was left unchallenged, and, although a bit far afield, it bears mention:
VI Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Flaws of man's biological design
VI.a Pro's R1 BoP said that God created a flawed human biological design as if this is given scientific fact. The facts of evolution since the infamous 19th century Scopes trial decision which banned the teaching of evolution in TN public schools has since been reversed, and that reversal applies across the country today. However, does evolution's evidence of natural selection of human [H. sapiens] biological design demonstrate the typical flaws observed today as extant in the biological record of H. Sapiens from 300,000 years ago at the advent of the species? The cited [39] article lists the following "design flaws:"
Dual Function of the Pharynx - soft tissue
Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin C - soft tissue
Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Track - soft tissue
Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum - soft tissue
Multi-Function Genitals - soft tissue
Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal - soft tissue
Inefficient Sinuses - soft tissue
Over-Loaded Lower Backs
Achy Knees
Overly Complicated Human Foot
Single Set of Adult Teeth
VI.b 7 of 11 [64%] physical traits are soft tissue-issues, meaning we have no evidence of the form design these tissues had in pre-history due to decomposition. The proof of Pro's claim is impossible to provide. Further, of the 4 remaining items on the list, only the last, a single row of teeth, upper and lower, can possibly be detailed as a potential design flaw, as we see no prehistoric evidence of a different design in early H. Sapiens. However, the causes of tooth decay are more attributed to poor care and consumption choices than poor design. And the remaining three [back, knee, foot] bone "design failures" are compensated by our eventual tool design and use, which is part of our God-commanded dominion of the Earth. That we see some evidence of structural abuse, even in peaceful pursuits, may be as much attributed to poor decision-making in overloading the load forces applied to skeletal/muscular capability rather than design flaw. The argument does not hold. No, these "flaws" are more due to errant ideas about proper diet and behavior than poor design, and do not support the Resolve, which therefore fails by this argument. If only design of human tissues is something either Gnosticism or modern Christianity can resolve by providing a "more reasonable" design is the Resolution met by this argument. Having researched the matter, Con sees no evidence that either have attempted, let alone given thought to correction of human tissue design. It is not in our best interest to blame God for all of our follies.
VII Rebuttal [Pro R3]
VII.a X
I conclude that we cannot apply, today, the merit of "more reasonable" to Gnostimysticism when Christocriscotech has the potential to make us more flaky, fluffy, and crispy, simultaneously with being saved, savored and favored by God.
As I see it, Con's "standing argument," as I voted, is off topic, i.e., not a scientific, but a societal approach. Con doers not present science that is not out-dated. And the Resolution, by designation of trans women [biological men] and sports. The obvious reference, then, of sports, is physical strength and endurance, not picking up and laying down chess pieces. Chess is a game, not a sport, even though competitive. It became the game it is today in Western Europe in the 15th century, and was only called a sport in the very late 20th century [1999] for more political reasons than entertainment.
I would have waited to the conclusion of voting to comment, but since my vote was challenged, but found to meet voting rules, I’ll just comment by explanation, as voters often use this Comments section, that this debate resolution by Pro was concise, and yet argued by a tangent by Con in all rounds: The Resolve: “Trans women" should not be allowed to compete in female sports.” “Sports” in this particular usage does not apply to “sports” wherein physical characteristics are not strongly associated with biological sex, and, therefore, chess, billiards, or archery do not fit in the realm of sports that require strength and endurance as key factors. “Sports,” by definition of the Resolve, and by data provided by Pro, favor the biological male, even after taking hormone therapy. Con’s argument was not on the biological advantage by sex, a scientific resolve, demanding a scientific approach. Rather, Con’s BoP became, by example, an argument of wearing blue, but thinking pink, it is still socially acceptable to eat apricots, because they are a complimentary color to blue, and will satisfy social values. That’s completely off-topic. That sort of argument may be perfectly valid in another debate where sex is not a primary factor, and does not involve physical strength and endurance. But that was not this debate.
In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
III Rebuttal [Pro R1]: The Demiurge
III.a Pro R1: "Gnosticism is a type of early Christianity that taught the material world was created by an evil being, and that Christ came to earth to liberate people from this evil world." This creator being is called by Gnosticism the "Demiurge." Pro's claim suggests a division separating the "Demiurge," and Christ. Throughout the New Testament, the association by multiple references express nothing but love between the creator and Christ:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."
"...and behold, a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I m well pleased; hear ye him."
III.b It is certain by both Gnosticism and modern Christianity that the world was created, and that it is imperfect, even though, as declared by God in Genesis that the creation was "good," not evil. There certainly was evil on the Earth by the presence of Lucifer, and God acknowledged the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil of his creation, but to then brand the creation of Earth and its inhabitants as an evil act stretches the commentary of Genesis to no advantage of Pro's argument.
III.c The scripture samples noted in ¶III.a [there are many more] express no animus, but mutual love. Therefore, Pro's argument, and Resolve are flawed.
IV Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Human on human violence
IV.a In his R1, Pro made the following argument: "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale." While the statement appears sound, it truncates the nature of human violence as if civilization was the root cause of of our mutual animus. And, let us observe that Pro avoids defining what he means by violent behavior. Is it yelling at one another? Shoving? Injuring? Causing death? We must recall that "human" is a nebulous term alleged to be coincident with the advent of the Homo [H.] sapiens species, but that is because H. sapiens is the only living human species left on Earth. We are not its originating species, nor was any species of the genus Homo unique on Earth other than the first of the series, H. habilis, originating 2.3M years ago. H. habilis was not "civilized" as defined by National Geographic, featuring six primary characteristics. H. habilis may have had one of them [art?], but all six are:
- urbanization - infrastructure/admin
- monuments/art - division of labor
-shared communication - class structure
IV.b H. neanderthalensis [400,000 years ago] is the first human to exhibit 4 of the 6 characteristics, missing only infrastructure and class structure, but, otherwise, match a decent degree of civilization's characteristics, even with small urbanization. They buried and monumentalized their dead, regardless how death occurred. Some skeletal remains show violence done to them, even to the degree of cannibalism. Artwork and division of labor was already developed long before the advent of H. neanderthalensis.
IV.c H. sapiens [300,000 years ago] were contemporaries with later Neanderthals, and became fully civilized by all 6 of the above characteristics, but that achievement required another 296,000 years to "'modern time," but, even then, from before the advent of "civilization," humans have been "violent" with one another, so civilization, contrary to Pro's assertion, did not "amplify," let alone initiate human-on-human violence. As human violence, even unto death, has always been in existence with our existence, the "reasonable" argument of amplification, and the Resolve, fail.
V Rebuttal [Pro R1]: Cruelty: man made in the image of God
V.a Pro alleged "Man being made in the image of God... suggests that he [God] is a figure of unimaginable cruelty" But Pro's Resolution alleges this is a modern Christian-originated and amplified "cruelty," which aligns with the Pro argument rebutted in this round's ¶III. Genesis, a record of man's creation, but whose dating is nebulous, because the "modern" Christian designation of Adam at roughly 4,000 B.C.E. does not account for the gaps in the genealogical story in Genesis, and is not a modern Christian device. Moses, the recorder of that story, lived more than 3,000 years ago. Even if "modern" applies to the age of Emperor Constantine, that is still 4th century C.E.; not yet "modern Christianity" alleged by Pro's Resolve, and Description:
"roman catholicism" [30 C.E.]
"protestantism" [1517]
"non-denominational" [early 1800s]
Pro failed to define the principle word "modern" of the Resolve in Description, so the term remains an open question Con is allowed to interpret as this very date [July 2025], since all three of Pro's "modern Christian" references are current organizations, though creations of relative antiquity.
V.b Referring to my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above, the "cruelty" of man to man, let alone of God's suggested cruelty to man, by Pro, that is rebutted above, pre-dates even Pro's resolved Gnosticism. Since cruelty continues today, gnosis has clearly failed to resolve the matter by "more reason..." in roughly 2,000 years, evidenced by our cruelty to each other today.
V.b.1 The problem with gnosis is its variable approach to a simple solution compared to Christianity's [modern or ancient] basic advice to:
1. Love God,
2. Love our neighbor.
Gnosis, in 2,000 years, has developed a schism of approaches. According to Britannica:
"Consensus on a definition of gnosticism has proved difficult. The groups conventionally classified as gnostic did not constitute a single movement with relatively homogenous organization, teachings, and rituals. Even the self-designation gnostic is problematic, since it is attested for only some of the traditions conventionally treated as gnostic, and its connotations are ambiguous."
V.b.2. All Christianity agrees upon the two commandments noted in V.b.1, above, being inter-dependent, offered by Christ early in the first century C.E. in Matthew to combat cruelty.
V.c My BoP is sufficient to demonstrate that Gnosticism has not and is not "more reasonable" than modern Christianity. The Resolve's "...more reasonable" must demonstrate that man's cruelty is less reasonably addressed by modern Christianity than Gnosticism's gnostischism [coined word]. My BoP is simply that the coined word, let alone Pro's gnosis, has not succeeded to achieve an objective of less cruelty to one another than our history from pre-history demonstrates.
V.d Gnosticism's objective is a secret mysticism to achieve oneness with deity.
V.e Modern Christianity's objective is love of deity and of one another to achieve oneness with deity.
V.e takes longer to describe than V.d, but has a much more personal one-on-one-on-One experience. That is, man-to-man-to-God due to lack of secrets and mystics, because love [see [35]] mentions neither secrets nor mysticism as essential. Gnosis, depending on which of the factions of it are cited, accepts the Gospels of the New Testament, including Matthew.
VI Rebuttal [Pro R2, pg 3]: Humans predicated on suffering
VI.a Pro R1 claim: "Therefore if I can establish that the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering, as well as the inconsistencies and flaws in biological design. This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful."
VI.b Predicted on suffering? No: In the Bible, "likeness," particularly in the context of being created in God's image and likeness, refers to a resemblance or similarity to God's nature and attributes. It signifies that humans share some of God's nature and attributes, even now, particularly in terms of having a spiritual nature, rationality, and the capacity for moral reasoning and relationship with God. This is, therefore, not a distant, nor even adversarial relationship with God's imposition of suffering as either a created status, nor a result of our existence, but of eventual redemption and glorification. There is no "Demiurge" [see my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above]. Rather, though we can suffer, it it brief, and then, "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you." We are predicated on ultimately being perfected and glorified. This is a much preferred predication and consequence than the Gnostic predication of ongoing suffering; therefore, a Gnostic failure of the Resolution.
VI.c Since Pro's predicate of human suffering is debunked, the follow-on Pro argument: "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful" is, likewise disheveled, not to mention [but I am] that these alleged attribute failures Pro insists are God's true nature, are neither in his failed Resolution ["ultimate argument"] nor the Description, nor are true by his own attempted logic.
VII Rebuttal [pro R2]: none
VII.a Pro forfeited R2, therefore, no further rebuttal now. Extend all arguments. Rebuttal of Pro's R1 claim of flawed human design will be addressed in Con R3.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot for this debate. As you have conceded as of today [4/6], I conclude.
R2 Sources separate in comments [not to count as argument characters]:
Read this post first
Argument: In each participant's R1 arguments, a severe differentiation is made interpreting the Title [Resolve]: "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports." This, with the Description, clearly targets the "trans woman" as being a "biological man," thus establishing a scientific basis of discussion. It also separates "trans male/biological women" from the debate.
R1 for Pro v. Con distinguishes the interpretive thrust of the separate debate Burdens of Proof [BoP]; Pro offers clear argument that the debate is a scientific-based BoP. Con counters with a social distinction, which violates the Con BoP. Pro offers argument of biological science, sexual [visual distinction, not function], and statistical data to demonstrate that trans women overwhelm in competition, and embarrass and distress bio women [in shared locker room/shower conditions]. Pro further defines severe side-effects of hormone therapy as a physical survival factor. This is off-topic relative to a sports-directed BoP.
Con argues "allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but this argument is social, not scientific, and is, therefore, off-topic to the Resolve. Then Con argues "non-endurance" sports do not draw a distinction between T[rans]W[omen] and B[io]W[omen], but then argues that "track and field, and boxing as "non-endurance" sports. Since when? Then Con adds chess, darts, and such as if physically-demanding competitive sports. Competitive, yes, but demanding? See Pro R3. Further Con argued, " It may be true that TW score higher on some markers after years of HRT, but not high enough to make a meaningful difference" but failed to provide any source for the claim, while Pro's source, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/, clearly stipulated that, "the TW generally maintained their strength levels" [as bio-men]. NIH is a more credible source than Con's un-sourced opinion.
Pro's R2 is an exercise in dismantling Con's R1 argument in total, reviewing the major points already cited above, plus adding testimony by Paula Scanlan of her emotional distress of a bio-man in her locker room, claiming to be a woman, but the obvious physical difference is not, as claimed by Con. "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," neither of which meet the Con BoP of the Resolve.
Con's R2 re-claims "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," with a source citation this time, but it is an older data set from NIH than Pro's, both of which cite reports of research into hormone therapy. While Pro's later citation outlines specific physical and psychological harm, Con's earlier dated NIH source has no such data. Con claims "My Case:
I gave a simple argument:
If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, and (ii) does so without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete.
(i) Allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits; (ii) it does so without sufficient social harm. Pro does not contest [1 [ strong social benefit], which morally amounts to a concession." No, no concession, because the Resolve is not one of either social benefit nor harm, but scientific, and Con's argument, to date, fails that. Con is pursuing the wrong BoP.
Con: "Pro does not contest any of this." Wrong, because "any of this" is entirely off-topic relative to Con's true BoP, which should be disproving the science, not pushing social benefit.
Con claims: "If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate." But pro has also said that off-sport locker room. Shower encounters of TW with BW is disturbing to BW, but Con's argument is flawed because "sports such as chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts..." do not indulge locker rooms, even though competitive. These are not physically demanding "sports" and, therefore, do not have the variance in physical performance stress the comparison of TW and BW physical stress sports have, so, here again, Con's argument is more social than science; therefore, wrong BoP.
Pro R3: A symphony in words: "Let’s be clear. The motion is understood — by any reasonable person debating in good faith — to focus on the contested terrain: mainstream competitive physical sports. To insist that the inclusion of darts or snooker somehow nukes the legitimacy of decades of concern about track, swimming, rugby, and boxing is not just laughable — it’s offensive to both logic and debate ethics."
And "You argue — coldly and shockingly — that even if dozens of women feel violated, cornered, and humiliated in the locker room, their discomfort is outweighed by one trans athlete’s “sense of fulfillment.”
And: "You accuse me of failing to provide evidence. Yet you conveniently ignore direct data from peer-reviewed literature stating: 'TW generally maintained their strength levels.'
'One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW.'” [These sources were cited by Pro]
Con's R3 failed to meet the symphony but by discord, similar to the failures of R1 & R2 to argue to the Resolve, using the tired effort of the wrong BoP as stated above.
Argument points to Pro
Sources:Pro's R1 and R2 dominate in credible sourcing as noted above in Arguments section, and by re-citing NIH countered by Con opinion, only in R1, and by R2's summary of Paula Scanlan v. "Lia Thomas" [in quotes because "Lia" is a bio-man, not a bio-woman]. Con's R2 does offer a source for his R1 argument of "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but Con's source, as said in the Argument section, is older and out-dated data.
Legibility: Pro needs to formalize consistent source-citing. Some citations preceed an argument; others follow, making it difficult to know which source is related to which argument. Con has an inter-argument lack making points, such as in R1, making a concluding remark that points i, and ii say x and y6, but there is not point ii given. This is corrected in R2. Tie
Conduct: Con began in R2 insisting that Pro should and did concede: "If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate." First, that is a partipant's decision, not the opposition to insist on concession. Con loses the point on that basis alone.
But, the R2 Con conclusion seals the loss: "Re. Riley Gains transphobia: in the link, you will see publicly makes transphobic remarks like:
'Lia Thomas is not a brave, courageous woman who EARNED a national title. He is an arrogant, cheat who STOLE a national title from a hardworking, deserving woman'" Truism [a valid kind]: Lia Thomas is not a biological woman, and therefore cannot be referred to as such. Lia is, truth talking, reality talking, a TW, a biological man.. Ms. Gaines referred to him correctly, L.T's preference notwithstanding.
Correction [not critical] I realize that I made a minor error in the introductory paragraph of my R1, saying, "As this site is headquartered in the U.S...." The fact is, the cite makes no indication of residence, so I'll offer a correction; I made a survey of the membership of four random pages of members who engage in debate, but not a page on which I am [a total of 200 members' sample size, a statistical qualification sample, considering just the membership who engage debate, 50 members per page] and find that 52%, a majority, indicate the U.S. as country of residence, and the claim of jurisdiction still holds. This is immaterial to the debate subject; but since the erroneous claim needed correction, I have done so. This also demonstrates the site draws internationally to a high degree, though less than a majority. That can only be good for variety of opinion.
An additional coincidence noted, by the same data collection noted above, a majority of members who are currently under a ban, regardless of duration, also do not identify a country of origin, choosing to remain "unknown." Correlation? I offer no opinion, just the casual observation.
To Sir.Lancelot, voters, and readers/interested parties:
I'm sorry for Sir.Lancelot forfeiting R2. I am prepared to publish my R2 now, but I am going into knee surgery next Tuesday, 7/8, and need to alllow a few days' recovery afterward, so, to extend the debate to allow those days without forfeiting Round 3, I am not going to publish my R2 rebuttal until about July 5 to allow Pro's R3 allowance of time, plus my R3 deadline to be at a point when I can issue my R3 on a timely basis. Thanks for your interest in this debate. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers in my behalf. I'll be back.
To IamAdityaDhaka,
Your assumptions [not squeaky-clean facts, by the way] are noted. The history of your assumptions ought to be researched, because they are not all that antiquated as you may assume. But, I know that rese arch is tedious, particularly when using the internet as the vehicle because you don't necessarily know how credentialed your reading material is, and that is a vital knowledge. The APA, and its DSM on the subject of homosexuality were not accepted as fully mainstream until 2013. Oops. I'm just a little older than that, and what I consider "ethics" is likely polar opposite from your, by comparison, infantile experience. Sorry, that's the breaks of cultural exposure. Maybe next time, try to initiate your own debates and try to limit the age and cultural norms of your voters. You can try, anyway.
If you block every one who disagrees with your cultural setting, you may find this site a lonely place.
My vote: R1
Pro forfeited R1, but the participants, through Comments, agreed upon a a solution to avoid penalty to pro for the. Unintended forfeiture, so that’s a null concern.
Con’s R1 passed on an opportunity to declare his own definitions of keywords since Pro did not do so in either the Description of the debate, nor in R1 - a tactical error of Con’s own. That has far-reaching consequence. Con does attempt to argue what love is not - a curious, and ineffective approach, in keeping with the relative shyness of definition by both participants. Love is ethical, and does foster prevention and change and caring to alter perceived bad behavior. It does not control, coerce, or shame. Arguing against the former, and for the latter is the negative approach to love that Con suggests.
Con ends with another reverse argument of what love is not; but rather than admit that love does not attempt by force to be someone else, Con argues that this is the flaw in the Resolve, by parental force to be someone else. But that is not love’s definition; it is coercion’s definition.
My vote; R2
Pro argues that Con “…did not add the parents perspective. Which, I believe, is crucial in this debate.” Indeed, crucial since it is a keyword of the Resolve. Pro follows with “I agree with you, coercive conversation therapy is harmful and overall unethical. Ok but here’s the thing: not every parents who struggle with their child’s gender/identity engages in conversation therapy. They’re merely trying to protect their long preserved culture/religion.” That is entirely in keeping with the Resolve as a parent’s ethical objective. This argument is the best at targeting the pro BoP of this Resolve: “Religious frameworks don’t revolve around self-expression or modern cultural norms. They revolve around obedience to divine law. If a parent genuinely believes that homosexual behavior is sinful and puts their child at risk spiritually — then acting to prevent that behavior isn’t hatred, it’s moral duty.”
Con’s R2 declares, “My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion. Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?” No, Con ignores the pro R2 argument just cited above, which allows for religion AND secular “moral duty,” and that Pro recognizes religion’s boundary with “modern cultural norms: that may not be uniquely religious. Con then argues, “Parents can guide. They cannot rewire.” Substitute “homosexual” with “criminal” behavior, and then try to make that rebuttal stick. Con is attempting to define parental love as only with regard to the latter behavior, but not the former.
That’s a failed argument.
My vote: R3
Pro’s summary seals the deal: “He [Con] hasn’t touched it [the Reesolve]. He’s just performing. And performances don’t win debates. Arguments do.”
Con’s summary is “No. The topic is this. What has a parent's religious belief have to do with anyone's gender?” Con summarizes by attempt to change the Resolve, but, he accepted the Resolve as is by accepting the debate challenge , and that statement does not relate to the given Resolve, it is Con’s summary of his 3 rounds of failed arguments.
I said your "can be" was a joke, that Pro won by argument. You missed the entire point that the win was by pointing out the distinction between your accused practice and the Resolve's point of form by the very word. Hey, you know you did; it was your hammer all four rounds. Form, my friend, is an ideal, not necessarily a practice, though you admit it can be a practice that we treat one another by the form.
Con's argument in R2 of Hitler's rise to power is a mish-mash citation of an article with poor math mistakes I'll let y'all figure out in detail. Doesn't really matter, because Hitler did not win the election, but took power anyway, very uin-democratically. Con says, because the article says that Hitler had 37% of the election results and that 37% is 75% of 51%, therefore, a majority of the vote. An election total would be 100% of the vote total, not 51%, yeah? Hitler, and the article writer ignored 49% of the voters. A mistake is published as fact, and read and cited as fact. Oops.
la créativité n'est pas une activité basée sur le temps ou sur les outils. elle est dans la tête, qui domine les deux autres.
that needs saying only once
If you delete this vote, you'll delete the most rational response to this debate, and it fulfills the close of the Description.
Besides, I'm confused by fathers and sons who look like twins
To participants, readers and voters: please read my eighth line which currently says: "...by arguing that abortion and homosexuality are not linked by any common thread..." by deleting "not." That is not wha was meant. Therefore, read as "by arguing that abortion and homosexuality are linked by any common thread..." Thanks.
I am amused by the expectation that only empiric evidence can reveal truth when that evidence not only apparently depends on our limited 5 senses - and at that, potentially limited by our perspective - when there are other animals which have those senses, plus more, such as echo location and sensitivity to Earth's magnetic field and to magnetic north, and there are other examples. Should we be able to learn these other senses, would not our "empiric evidence" sources increase in number, thus acknowledge our limitations of establishing empiric evidence? And as that is true, and it is currently being proven that we apparently have the ability to learn some of these added senses, why would we continue to insist we have only five on which to establish "fact" - always tempered by perspective, which is why we "knew" for centuries that Earth centers the universe, simply because that was our demonstrable perspective, when we know now it is not true? Why then should we dismiss faith as one of these potential learned senses beyond our five many of us currently lack? One reason: we insist that belief and faith are synonymous. What if that, like an Earth-centered universe, is not true, after all?
Sorry to mention that this debate simply got too wordy: It is over 31,000 words, which fill in excess of 100 page of 8.5 x 11, Times New Roman 12 pt. font, single space, but for paragraph separation. It could have allowed 300,000 words in the 5 rounds had both participants taken their full allotted 30,000 words per round. Most publishers refuse to read that much in a single publishing submission, let alone publish it. Neither participant consumed as many words as needed to fill the Quran or the Bible, but both volumes contain much more enlightening information than this debate, which even has the participants arguing past each other rather than with each other, simply because they never agreed on the REsolution, but debated anyway. Certainly many debate voters will tire of what words did fill this debate at even 10% of the allotted total. Many have in the past. Any voter who wishes to consume that much for analysis, go ahead; make my day. I for one have other tasks of more pressing engagement. I am working on a solution to the problem of how to make the lint in my pockets a successful fire retardant.
I have not yet read the debate, but my current mode of avoiding voting is riot intended to last too long, and surely within the nearly 25 days allotted for voting will not pass without a personal decision to vote on this debate. The Resolution is sound, regardless of argument in comments of Description points. David, I think you've given a perfect model of what Description is intended to do, and rightly point out the Description is clarification/definition, and not the the Resolution, which should be the only respective argument/rebuttal BoPs.
I advise new and seasoned debaters to study this model and use it in their debate challenges. Besides, modal logic is delicious.
As I have sworn off voting for the time being, I will comment here that the Library of Medicine of the U.S. has defined "trans" as a genetic condition by which one is born and is not either XX, nor XY, but variable alterations of both, but also that only 0.000007% of the 8B humans populating Earth exhibit these varied conditions in the 23rd pair of chromosomes, which amounts to about 500 individuals, worldwide; about 3 people per country on average. As people claiming to be "trans" far exceeds this number, the balance making the claim have a head trip, ergo, choice, whether they realize the ramifications of the choice, or not. Many apparently do not, because their 23rd chromosome says XX or XY in 99.9999% of them..
This debate is, now half-complete, shaping up to be a very good debate worthy of voting on. I encourage members to do so. It may be one in which [not to put too fine a point on drama] is not won until the final round. I'm curious why it has not attracted more attention here in the gallery. Is this an over-debated issue? Seems members are still willing to use the Forum in open discussion of two of three most frequently visited topics, politics and religion [with the third being, in my estimation, the absurd topic of gaming, in which I don't think I have entered a single posting in 5 years. If I have, it is to express this sentiment].
I onrt3ended to include Fishchaser as a recipient, butte is no longer on site. I apologize for missing voting on this debate, because it is a subject that has personally effect. However, I did read the arguments and references and found, on the whole, that I would have voted for Savant, even though I am probably closer to Fishchaser in sentiment. Fishchaser's biblical sources were, for the most part, inaccurate, or at least in some cases limited to O.T. consideration of things which were fulfilled [ergo, altered, from law of Moses consideration, which is how they ought to be understood today]. For example, the complete interdiction of consuming wine by Pro's argument should, if true, enforce the consumption of some other liquid for purposes of the Eucharist/Sacrament, but wine is the typical representation of Christ's blood, "shed for us." And the notion that the ancients, mentioning wine, must have always been fresh grape juice simply ignores the common phenomenon that fermentation is, without any fancy equipment or chemical addition, a natural process even if intent was that it remain grape juice. Besides, in antiquity, if one fell off his ass or cart, he injures himself, and likely no one else. We cannot claim the same today by our transport vehicles.. Secondly, the notion that "plant urine" is a real thing is pure fantasy to a well-trained botanist. Plants do not urinate, pure and simple. The moniker is as absurd as expecting the climate to have Camelot-type rain and snow only after sunset, and July and August cannot be too hot. Utter nonsense. And, son of a gun, Genesis 9: 3 tells us meat is for food. That's a few chapters away from the creation story, but, so what? The verse is quite specific; man is to be an omnivore. We have enzymes in our created physiology the which entire purpose is the breakdown of flesh, not just vegetable matter. We have canine teeth, not for tearing leaves. Those are properly chewed. Although Savant did not cover all these arguments, he covered enough to clearly overwhelm Pro's arguments and rebuttals.
Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given, as I said, more than just a citied sentence, and yet was twice removed. Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria. Two entire debates of multiple rounds of text, each, which needed to be absorbed, and I did, and considered them sufficient to meet a not-so clarified standard. What do you require, personally, the citation of a bible? You have made many votes of loss by forfeit, only, when the opposing winner had very poor quality of argument, let alone sourcing. No, I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range. Either you feel there is value to sourcing, or you do not. Apparently not. As I said, you've destroyed any value I see in making an effort of voting under any circumstance. Thanks a lot.
Edition: I addressed this to Barney, to whom was my first referenced recipient; David was the last, but ended up being primary recipient somehow.
Having been on debate teams in high school, being its captain in senior year, and in university, the idea that sourcing is "optional" anytime is ignorant. But I even had a debate on the subject and lost it, here, so I get it: "debate" according to DA is bullshyte. I've offered suggestions before, but this old man is ignored. Yeah, I get it.
I find this double vote removal for sourcing to be absurd. The very first notice of judgment on sourcing is that, even for a multiple-criterion debate, the sourcing vote is OPTIONAL, but that contradicts the point by saying "Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof." I felt that though Pro had but two sources, those sources were not, imo, mere quoted sentences from a source, but two entire debates which met the standard of "Better supporters their case." Conversely, Con's solitary source, a definition, was a chosen source that defined an irrelevancy of "forfeit;" a legal definition not having any relation to the debate subject at all, complying with "A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case" from the voting policy.
I found the following statement directly contradictory as a vagary followed by a specific: "A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration." I contend this is not sufficient to remove a vote, twice. Clean up the language of the policy, or stop making a point of discouraging voting. You have succeeded in the latter. You make no encouragement for membrfs to vote, which kind defeats the whole purpose of an entire section of the site.
I've re-voted, noticing I omitted an important point I wanted to reference in regard to your round 3 cited sources of DA debates - a superb sourcing for this debate. Con did have a source, however, a definition. of "forfeit" in R2, but it was a legal definition, unrelated to the subject of debate forfeit, so I ignored it, though mentioned it.
Considering the religious nature of this debate, in my debate rounds, though I am neither Protestant, non-denominational, nor Catholic [I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], I will use the King James Version of the Holy Bible [KJV] as it is recognized by 49% of Christians in America [a singular majority] and 55% of Protestants, which, collectively, are the highest percentage of Christians in the U.S. As this site is headquartered in the U.S., it becomes the jurisdiction of preference, using the KJV for reference for my debate rounds 1-4 on this Resolution.
In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
I Argument: What is "reasonable?"
I.a Being a Resolution keyword, I suggest "reasonable" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to an unbiased alternative; the law: In Black's Law Dictionary, "reasonable" is defined as "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances." A secular definition: according to the OED, "fair, sensible, just and moderate." These definitions emphasize an objective standard that will suit our purposes, concentrating on the information in both citations.
I.b Therefore, what is "fair, proper, moderate, sensible, just" [fpmsj] for Gnosticism to be/not be our separate Burden of Proof [BoP]]? "...under the circumstances;" meaning, in this debate's exclusive case, to either support or defeat the Resolution. That is, strictly speaking, the limit of either participant's BoP.
I.c Gnostic Christianity [G.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven to assist humanity in spiritual improvement. They believe "redemption" occurs through the revelation of secret knowledge.
I.c.1 "Secret knowledge" is not attainable, by definition [secret = restricted access], to the ordinary person. That is, it is not accessible to all, or it would not be secret, or sacred, would it?
I.d Whereas Modern Christianity [M.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven, as the Son of God, to redeem from death by resurrection., They believe Jesus is the direct cause of their redemption from death by virtue of his multi-purposed act of atonement.* "And he [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1.d.1 *The atonement is recognized separately by separate denominations of M.C as being accomplished for different purposes, some shared, some not. I shall not use these separate purposes but one; redemption from death, which all M.C accept relating to "redemption," but is generally rejected by M.C as a specific function of "redemption," as explained below [R1, I.e, I.e.1, I.e.2].
Sources:
[1] https://research.lifeway.com/2014/03/17/majority-of-americans-still-prefer-king-james/
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989
[4] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[5] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 16: 16
[6] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 22
[7] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] I John 2: 2
[9] https://yogainternational.com/article/view/gnostic-texts-reveal-jesus-in-a-new-light/?srsltid=AfmBOorgY5157EQj7jlWE9RDGUGAtbH0-J3qbIIAeKnMZTMF6H8nW4VS
I.e "Redemption," then, since both G.C and M.C use the term, cannot be viewed fairly by a third, unbiased party, as meaning the same thing. This fact places further weight on the keyword, "reasonable," and its conditional "under the circumstances."
I.e.1 Redemption [G.C]: attainment of secret knowledge to improve spirituality.
I.e.2 Redemption [M.C.]: restored from death by resurrection, directly due to Jesus Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept."
I.f Therefore, it is not "reasonable" to accept that a "[fpmsj]", i.e. "reasonable" person under the circumstance of secrecy, to have access to secret knowledge as being the "more reasonable" condition. Whereas, the knowledge of, and effect of Christ's redemption from death is freely accessible to all without exception as well as without any knowledge whatsoever, secret or otherwise. This must include even persons born on Earth who have never heard of Jesus Christ, such as persons living deep in forests of the Amazon, or Africa, or elsewhere void of broadcast communication, even in print media in an appropriate language. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." No secret knowledge necessary, and available to all unconditionally without asking. Is there any religious doctrine more reasonable, or civilized even in a secular and legal sense, let alone religious? Even confirmed atheists, and even Satan-worshippers, murderers, rapists, and thieves, and the utterly ignorant through no fault of their own, either now or in all times past, have access to redemption, m.C-style. Therefore, the Resolution, "Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity," is defeated.
II.a Pro's R1 claim, "the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering..." is not correct. Witness: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent..." and "...I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
II.a.1 These near-opening and closing statements of John's Chapter 17 express not suffering as a foundation, but love, and is a promise to all who have and will express in word and deed their obedience to the two commandments offered by Christ when asked to expound on the "great commandment in the law." "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ...And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Who is our neighbor? Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7, inclusive] that our neighbor ultimately includes our enemy, so, it is everyone.
II.b Pro's R1 further claimed, "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful." However, Christ declared, not in secret, but openly; "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Being perfect for as long as God has been perfect, it can be presumed that his perfection includes benevolence and omnipotence on demand, if not needed on all occasions.
11.b.1 I learned as a novice Six Sigma Black Belt, an industrial manufacturing management certification, that "Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process." We may not achieve perfection in all things in this mortal lifetime, but that we can become perfect in performance of some simple processes, such as brushing teeth, is foregone conclusion. The more; the better.
II.c Pro closes R1 with an argument that "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale," claiming that prior to civilization men acted like savages [and still do, but on a larger scale than prior to civilization]. But Pro ignores that civilized people [including early biblical generations] could also be righteous people: "And Jared begat Enoch... And Enoch begat Methuselah... And Enoch walked with God... [implying that he was righteous]... And Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God took him."
II.c.1 Paul admonished us "...as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." Though the natural man seeks evil, and is an enemy to God, the man filled with grace is righteous by word and deed. This is the man Pro ignores in his argument of the skeptical Gnostic.
II.d Pro's R1 cited https://gnosticismexplained.org/ which states "Gnosis was salvation through mystical union with the divine..." Mysticism is not exactly how Christ defines his Gospel message. Mysticism is defined as, "A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection." A definition of "nons-" and "nots," which begs the question, How does one prove a negative?" I think Christ's direct, open, mystic-free suggestion to "love you neighbor" is far more productive, and accessible.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot. To you I pass Round 2.
Sources:
[12] Holy Bible [KJV] John 17; 3, 26
[13] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 22: 37, 39
[14] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 44
[15] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 48
[16] CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 5th Edition, 2022
[17] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 5; 18-24
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Corinthians 8: 7
[19] https://gnosticismexplained.org/
Re; your #4 post;
Yes, and all those sources are basically reading each other, none of them have credible sourcing of their own such as to a pure researched and peer-reviewed article with back-up scientific data to sustain the claims made, such as the claim that 10% of all carbon emission is from the fashion industry. You made the claim that discarded fashion takes hundreds of years to decompose [after claiming it is not biodegradable at all!] but a large tree can take that long as well, and that is an entirely organic thing. Same with dinosaurs, only they could take much, much longer to decompose. So, decomposition is no argument in your favor.
Voting notes:
Pro claimed in R1 [not sourced] "the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions.' I entered this string as a search string and found about a half-dozen [there were more, but I stopped looking] sites making the same exact claim, but none were credible, science-based articles with attributable studied coming to that conclusion. They are all using much the same verbiage without sourcing their information, either. This is a prevalent problem with the internet. Everyone claims data without sourcing their data, and saying it in much the same language, leaving the suspicion that they're reading the same source articles, and none of them have credible proof of the claim, just borrowing from one another, which essentially counts as rumor, not fact.
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
I vote to render decision of my observations of debates, but also to help new site members on the underlying debate protocol that will lead to better debating. I'm 75, and have debated since high school, even in a variety of professional functions, so it is a familiar exercise. I make mistakes, too, so please do not take this as assuming I am an expert. I hope I can be a help. Take it in that light. As attributes go, I learned a lot about cats from your argument I did not know before as I have never had one as a pet. I'm allergic to them, as it happens [their dander causes extreme nasal congestion], but not to dogs, of which I've had several.
Then you misunderstand what I meant by "purpose" in defining, by argument, "Better." As I said, "As a pet? As human or property protection? As something to kick around?" "Better" needs to have that explanation, and neither of you satisfied that threshold. I did not mention that the only description is: "Everyone knows it's true," which amounts to a truism. that advantages Pro., and that cannot be by an instigator.
You both argued for attriv Ute's of dogs and cats, and that's fine for a debate that is abut attributes. But attributes is not tree resolution, is it?
Read the debate instructions relative to "truism" and voting on that principle. You know why I did not, but you'll notice I am a frequent voter. In fact, I rank in the topi ten [#7] of all who vote on debates, and in the top 20 [#14] of all debaters who debate [over 1,200 of us].
Both participants forfeited half the scheduled rounds, and made only claims of what amounts to "better," a nebulous term on which to debate any resolution. "Better," for what purpose? As a pet? As human or property protection? As something to kick around? Neither deserve a vote.
As you know, I continue [I think] to have issues entering arguments in the argument section of debates and must use comments for posting rounds and have no intent to forfeit rounds. If you're agreeable to that. pls. let me know. I think this would be a good debate for us. I'm okay with limiting the modern Christian perspective as you have defined it.
Con Round 3 pg 1 [07/15/2025]
In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
I recognize that Pro has yielded the debate, but one of his arguments was left unchallenged, and, although a bit far afield, it bears mention:
VI Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Flaws of man's biological design
VI.a Pro's R1 BoP said that God created a flawed human biological design as if this is given scientific fact. The facts of evolution since the infamous 19th century Scopes trial decision which banned the teaching of evolution in TN public schools has since been reversed, and that reversal applies across the country today. However, does evolution's evidence of natural selection of human [H. sapiens] biological design demonstrate the typical flaws observed today as extant in the biological record of H. Sapiens from 300,000 years ago at the advent of the species? The cited [39] article lists the following "design flaws:"
Dual Function of the Pharynx - soft tissue
Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin C - soft tissue
Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Track - soft tissue
Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum - soft tissue
Multi-Function Genitals - soft tissue
Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal - soft tissue
Inefficient Sinuses - soft tissue
Over-Loaded Lower Backs
Achy Knees
Overly Complicated Human Foot
Single Set of Adult Teeth
VI.b 7 of 11 [64%] physical traits are soft tissue-issues, meaning we have no evidence of the form design these tissues had in pre-history due to decomposition. The proof of Pro's claim is impossible to provide. Further, of the 4 remaining items on the list, only the last, a single row of teeth, upper and lower, can possibly be detailed as a potential design flaw, as we see no prehistoric evidence of a different design in early H. Sapiens. However, the causes of tooth decay are more attributed to poor care and consumption choices than poor design. And the remaining three [back, knee, foot] bone "design failures" are compensated by our eventual tool design and use, which is part of our God-commanded dominion of the Earth. That we see some evidence of structural abuse, even in peaceful pursuits, may be as much attributed to poor decision-making in overloading the load forces applied to skeletal/muscular capability rather than design flaw. The argument does not hold. No, these "flaws" are more due to errant ideas about proper diet and behavior than poor design, and do not support the Resolve, which therefore fails by this argument. If only design of human tissues is something either Gnosticism or modern Christianity can resolve by providing a "more reasonable" design is the Resolution met by this argument. Having researched the matter, Con sees no evidence that either have attempted, let alone given thought to correction of human tissue design. It is not in our best interest to blame God for all of our follies.
VII Rebuttal [Pro R3]
VII.a X
I conclude that we cannot apply, today, the merit of "more reasonable" to Gnostimysticism when Christocriscotech has the potential to make us more flaky, fluffy, and crispy, simultaneously with being saved, savored and favored by God.
R3 Sources:
[39] https://gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787
I have no more rebuttal and conclude the debate its finished by Pro's concession [post #10]
As I see it, Con's "standing argument," as I voted, is off topic, i.e., not a scientific, but a societal approach. Con doers not present science that is not out-dated. And the Resolution, by designation of trans women [biological men] and sports. The obvious reference, then, of sports, is physical strength and endurance, not picking up and laying down chess pieces. Chess is a game, not a sport, even though competitive. It became the game it is today in Western Europe in the 15th century, and was only called a sport in the very late 20th century [1999] for more political reasons than entertainment.
I would have waited to the conclusion of voting to comment, but since my vote was challenged, but found to meet voting rules, I’ll just comment by explanation, as voters often use this Comments section, that this debate resolution by Pro was concise, and yet argued by a tangent by Con in all rounds: The Resolve: “Trans women" should not be allowed to compete in female sports.” “Sports” in this particular usage does not apply to “sports” wherein physical characteristics are not strongly associated with biological sex, and, therefore, chess, billiards, or archery do not fit in the realm of sports that require strength and endurance as key factors. “Sports,” by definition of the Resolve, and by data provided by Pro, favor the biological male, even after taking hormone therapy. Con’s argument was not on the biological advantage by sex, a scientific resolve, demanding a scientific approach. Rather, Con’s BoP became, by example, an argument of wearing blue, but thinking pink, it is still socially acceptable to eat apricots, because they are a complimentary color to blue, and will satisfy social values. That’s completely off-topic. That sort of argument may be perfectly valid in another debate where sex is not a primary factor, and does not involve physical strength and endurance. But that was not this debate.
If it's any consolation, I, too, have been blocked.
I have posted my R2 arguments in posts #15, #14, #13, read in that order, with sources for R2 in post #12
Con Round 2 pg 1 [07/06/2025]
In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
III Rebuttal [Pro R1]: The Demiurge
III.a Pro R1: "Gnosticism is a type of early Christianity that taught the material world was created by an evil being, and that Christ came to earth to liberate people from this evil world." This creator being is called by Gnosticism the "Demiurge." Pro's claim suggests a division separating the "Demiurge," and Christ. Throughout the New Testament, the association by multiple references express nothing but love between the creator and Christ:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."
"...and behold, a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I m well pleased; hear ye him."
III.b It is certain by both Gnosticism and modern Christianity that the world was created, and that it is imperfect, even though, as declared by God in Genesis that the creation was "good," not evil. There certainly was evil on the Earth by the presence of Lucifer, and God acknowledged the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil of his creation, but to then brand the creation of Earth and its inhabitants as an evil act stretches the commentary of Genesis to no advantage of Pro's argument.
III.c The scripture samples noted in ¶III.a [there are many more] express no animus, but mutual love. Therefore, Pro's argument, and Resolve are flawed.
IV Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Human on human violence
IV.a In his R1, Pro made the following argument: "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale." While the statement appears sound, it truncates the nature of human violence as if civilization was the root cause of of our mutual animus. And, let us observe that Pro avoids defining what he means by violent behavior. Is it yelling at one another? Shoving? Injuring? Causing death? We must recall that "human" is a nebulous term alleged to be coincident with the advent of the Homo [H.] sapiens species, but that is because H. sapiens is the only living human species left on Earth. We are not its originating species, nor was any species of the genus Homo unique on Earth other than the first of the series, H. habilis, originating 2.3M years ago. H. habilis was not "civilized" as defined by National Geographic, featuring six primary characteristics. H. habilis may have had one of them [art?], but all six are:
- urbanization - infrastructure/admin
- monuments/art - division of labor
-shared communication - class structure
IV.b H. neanderthalensis [400,000 years ago] is the first human to exhibit 4 of the 6 characteristics, missing only infrastructure and class structure, but, otherwise, match a decent degree of civilization's characteristics, even with small urbanization. They buried and monumentalized their dead, regardless how death occurred. Some skeletal remains show violence done to them, even to the degree of cannibalism. Artwork and division of labor was already developed long before the advent of H. neanderthalensis.
IV.c H. sapiens [300,000 years ago] were contemporaries with later Neanderthals, and became fully civilized by all 6 of the above characteristics, but that achievement required another 296,000 years to "'modern time," but, even then, from before the advent of "civilization," humans have been "violent" with one another, so civilization, contrary to Pro's assertion, did not "amplify," let alone initiate human-on-human violence. As human violence, even unto death, has always been in existence with our existence, the "reasonable" argument of amplification, and the Resolve, fail.
Con Round 2 pg 2 [07/06/2025]
V Rebuttal [Pro R1]: Cruelty: man made in the image of God
V.a Pro alleged "Man being made in the image of God... suggests that he [God] is a figure of unimaginable cruelty" But Pro's Resolution alleges this is a modern Christian-originated and amplified "cruelty," which aligns with the Pro argument rebutted in this round's ¶III. Genesis, a record of man's creation, but whose dating is nebulous, because the "modern" Christian designation of Adam at roughly 4,000 B.C.E. does not account for the gaps in the genealogical story in Genesis, and is not a modern Christian device. Moses, the recorder of that story, lived more than 3,000 years ago. Even if "modern" applies to the age of Emperor Constantine, that is still 4th century C.E.; not yet "modern Christianity" alleged by Pro's Resolve, and Description:
"roman catholicism" [30 C.E.]
"protestantism" [1517]
"non-denominational" [early 1800s]
Pro failed to define the principle word "modern" of the Resolve in Description, so the term remains an open question Con is allowed to interpret as this very date [July 2025], since all three of Pro's "modern Christian" references are current organizations, though creations of relative antiquity.
V.b Referring to my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above, the "cruelty" of man to man, let alone of God's suggested cruelty to man, by Pro, that is rebutted above, pre-dates even Pro's resolved Gnosticism. Since cruelty continues today, gnosis has clearly failed to resolve the matter by "more reason..." in roughly 2,000 years, evidenced by our cruelty to each other today.
V.b.1 The problem with gnosis is its variable approach to a simple solution compared to Christianity's [modern or ancient] basic advice to:
1. Love God,
2. Love our neighbor.
Gnosis, in 2,000 years, has developed a schism of approaches. According to Britannica:
"Consensus on a definition of gnosticism has proved difficult. The groups conventionally classified as gnostic did not constitute a single movement with relatively homogenous organization, teachings, and rituals. Even the self-designation gnostic is problematic, since it is attested for only some of the traditions conventionally treated as gnostic, and its connotations are ambiguous."
V.b.2. All Christianity agrees upon the two commandments noted in V.b.1, above, being inter-dependent, offered by Christ early in the first century C.E. in Matthew to combat cruelty.
V.c My BoP is sufficient to demonstrate that Gnosticism has not and is not "more reasonable" than modern Christianity. The Resolve's "...more reasonable" must demonstrate that man's cruelty is less reasonably addressed by modern Christianity than Gnosticism's gnostischism [coined word]. My BoP is simply that the coined word, let alone Pro's gnosis, has not succeeded to achieve an objective of less cruelty to one another than our history from pre-history demonstrates.
V.d Gnosticism's objective is a secret mysticism to achieve oneness with deity.
V.e Modern Christianity's objective is love of deity and of one another to achieve oneness with deity.
V.e takes longer to describe than V.d, but has a much more personal one-on-one-on-One experience. That is, man-to-man-to-God due to lack of secrets and mystics, because love [see [35]] mentions neither secrets nor mysticism as essential. Gnosis, depending on which of the factions of it are cited, accepts the Gospels of the New Testament, including Matthew.
Con Round 2 pg 3 [07/06/2025]
VI Rebuttal [Pro R2, pg 3]: Humans predicated on suffering
VI.a Pro R1 claim: "Therefore if I can establish that the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering, as well as the inconsistencies and flaws in biological design. This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful."
VI.b Predicted on suffering? No: In the Bible, "likeness," particularly in the context of being created in God's image and likeness, refers to a resemblance or similarity to God's nature and attributes. It signifies that humans share some of God's nature and attributes, even now, particularly in terms of having a spiritual nature, rationality, and the capacity for moral reasoning and relationship with God. This is, therefore, not a distant, nor even adversarial relationship with God's imposition of suffering as either a created status, nor a result of our existence, but of eventual redemption and glorification. There is no "Demiurge" [see my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above]. Rather, though we can suffer, it it brief, and then, "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you." We are predicated on ultimately being perfected and glorified. This is a much preferred predication and consequence than the Gnostic predication of ongoing suffering; therefore, a Gnostic failure of the Resolution.
VI.c Since Pro's predicate of human suffering is debunked, the follow-on Pro argument: "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful" is, likewise disheveled, not to mention [but I am] that these alleged attribute failures Pro insists are God's true nature, are neither in his failed Resolution ["ultimate argument"] nor the Description, nor are true by his own attempted logic.
VII Rebuttal [pro R2]: none
VII.a Pro forfeited R2, therefore, no further rebuttal now. Extend all arguments. Rebuttal of Pro's R1 claim of flawed human design will be addressed in Con R3.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot for this debate. As you have conceded as of today [4/6], I conclude.
R2 Sources separate in comments [not to count as argument characters]:
R2 Sources:
[20] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Demiurge
[21] Holy Bible [KJV] John 3: 16
[22] Holy Bible [KJV] John 15: 9
[23] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 17: 5
[24] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 31
[25] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 17
[26] https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0247-8
[27] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/
[28] https://europe.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-823.html
[29] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/
[30] https://creation.com/genesis-genealogies#:~:text=Historical records with deep theological significance&text=Many people alive today do,generations from Adam to Abraham.
[31] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor
[32] https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy. See "Overview of the Papacy"
[33] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/protestant-reformation/
[34] https://generationschurch.co/identity/non-denomination-history/
[35] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 22: 37, 39
[36] https://www.britannica.com/topic/gnosticism
[37] https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/gnostic-insights-in-the-new-testament-gospels/
[38] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 26, 27
[39] https://www.icbyte.org/index.php/perspectives/bishops2/139-bishop-alberto-rojas/2557-created-in-the-image-and-likeness-of-god-let-s-unpack-it
[40] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Peter 5: 10
I am. sorry, my friend, to see your concession. If you don 't mind, I am still going to present my R2 rebuttal. Thanks for a very good debate subject.
Thank you.
Read this post first
Argument: In each participant's R1 arguments, a severe differentiation is made interpreting the Title [Resolve]: "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports." This, with the Description, clearly targets the "trans woman" as being a "biological man," thus establishing a scientific basis of discussion. It also separates "trans male/biological women" from the debate.
R1 for Pro v. Con distinguishes the interpretive thrust of the separate debate Burdens of Proof [BoP]; Pro offers clear argument that the debate is a scientific-based BoP. Con counters with a social distinction, which violates the Con BoP. Pro offers argument of biological science, sexual [visual distinction, not function], and statistical data to demonstrate that trans women overwhelm in competition, and embarrass and distress bio women [in shared locker room/shower conditions]. Pro further defines severe side-effects of hormone therapy as a physical survival factor. This is off-topic relative to a sports-directed BoP.
Con argues "allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but this argument is social, not scientific, and is, therefore, off-topic to the Resolve. Then Con argues "non-endurance" sports do not draw a distinction between T[rans]W[omen] and B[io]W[omen], but then argues that "track and field, and boxing as "non-endurance" sports. Since when? Then Con adds chess, darts, and such as if physically-demanding competitive sports. Competitive, yes, but demanding? See Pro R3. Further Con argued, " It may be true that TW score higher on some markers after years of HRT, but not high enough to make a meaningful difference" but failed to provide any source for the claim, while Pro's source, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/, clearly stipulated that, "the TW generally maintained their strength levels" [as bio-men]. NIH is a more credible source than Con's un-sourced opinion.
Pro's R2 is an exercise in dismantling Con's R1 argument in total, reviewing the major points already cited above, plus adding testimony by Paula Scanlan of her emotional distress of a bio-man in her locker room, claiming to be a woman, but the obvious physical difference is not, as claimed by Con. "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," neither of which meet the Con BoP of the Resolve.
Con's R2 re-claims "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," with a source citation this time, but it is an older data set from NIH than Pro's, both of which cite reports of research into hormone therapy. While Pro's later citation outlines specific physical and psychological harm, Con's earlier dated NIH source has no such data. Con claims "My Case:
I gave a simple argument:
If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, and (ii) does so without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete.
(i) Allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits; (ii) it does so without sufficient social harm. Pro does not contest [1 [ strong social benefit], which morally amounts to a concession." No, no concession, because the Resolve is not one of either social benefit nor harm, but scientific, and Con's argument, to date, fails that. Con is pursuing the wrong BoP.
Con: "Pro does not contest any of this." Wrong, because "any of this" is entirely off-topic relative to Con's true BoP, which should be disproving the science, not pushing social benefit.
Con claims: "If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate." But pro has also said that off-sport locker room. Shower encounters of TW with BW is disturbing to BW, but Con's argument is flawed because "sports such as chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts..." do not indulge locker rooms, even though competitive. These are not physically demanding "sports" and, therefore, do not have the variance in physical performance stress the comparison of TW and BW physical stress sports have, so, here again, Con's argument is more social than science; therefore, wrong BoP.
My RFD detail: [Read this post last]
Pro R3: A symphony in words: "Let’s be clear. The motion is understood — by any reasonable person debating in good faith — to focus on the contested terrain: mainstream competitive physical sports. To insist that the inclusion of darts or snooker somehow nukes the legitimacy of decades of concern about track, swimming, rugby, and boxing is not just laughable — it’s offensive to both logic and debate ethics."
And "You argue — coldly and shockingly — that even if dozens of women feel violated, cornered, and humiliated in the locker room, their discomfort is outweighed by one trans athlete’s “sense of fulfillment.”
And: "You accuse me of failing to provide evidence. Yet you conveniently ignore direct data from peer-reviewed literature stating: 'TW generally maintained their strength levels.'
'One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW.'” [These sources were cited by Pro]
Con's R3 failed to meet the symphony but by discord, similar to the failures of R1 & R2 to argue to the Resolve, using the tired effort of the wrong BoP as stated above.
Argument points to Pro
Sources:Pro's R1 and R2 dominate in credible sourcing as noted above in Arguments section, and by re-citing NIH countered by Con opinion, only in R1, and by R2's summary of Paula Scanlan v. "Lia Thomas" [in quotes because "Lia" is a bio-man, not a bio-woman]. Con's R2 does offer a source for his R1 argument of "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but Con's source, as said in the Argument section, is older and out-dated data.
Legibility: Pro needs to formalize consistent source-citing. Some citations preceed an argument; others follow, making it difficult to know which source is related to which argument. Con has an inter-argument lack making points, such as in R1, making a concluding remark that points i, and ii say x and y6, but there is not point ii given. This is corrected in R2. Tie
Conduct: Con began in R2 insisting that Pro should and did concede: "If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate." First, that is a partipant's decision, not the opposition to insist on concession. Con loses the point on that basis alone.
But, the R2 Con conclusion seals the loss: "Re. Riley Gains transphobia: in the link, you will see publicly makes transphobic remarks like:
'Lia Thomas is not a brave, courageous woman who EARNED a national title. He is an arrogant, cheat who STOLE a national title from a hardworking, deserving woman'" Truism [a valid kind]: Lia Thomas is not a biological woman, and therefore cannot be referred to as such. Lia is, truth talking, reality talking, a TW, a biological man.. Ms. Gaines referred to him correctly, L.T's preference notwithstanding.
Correction [not critical] I realize that I made a minor error in the introductory paragraph of my R1, saying, "As this site is headquartered in the U.S...." The fact is, the cite makes no indication of residence, so I'll offer a correction; I made a survey of the membership of four random pages of members who engage in debate, but not a page on which I am [a total of 200 members' sample size, a statistical qualification sample, considering just the membership who engage debate, 50 members per page] and find that 52%, a majority, indicate the U.S. as country of residence, and the claim of jurisdiction still holds. This is immaterial to the debate subject; but since the erroneous claim needed correction, I have done so. This also demonstrates the site draws internationally to a high degree, though less than a majority. That can only be good for variety of opinion.
An additional coincidence noted, by the same data collection noted above, a majority of members who are currently under a ban, regardless of duration, also do not identify a country of origin, choosing to remain "unknown." Correlation? I offer no opinion, just the casual observation.
To Sir.Lancelot, voters, and readers/interested parties:
I'm sorry for Sir.Lancelot forfeiting R2. I am prepared to publish my R2 now, but I am going into knee surgery next Tuesday, 7/8, and need to alllow a few days' recovery afterward, so, to extend the debate to allow those days without forfeiting Round 3, I am not going to publish my R2 rebuttal until about July 5 to allow Pro's R3 allowance of time, plus my R3 deadline to be at a point when I can issue my R3 on a timely basis. Thanks for your interest in this debate. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers in my behalf. I'll be back.
To IamAdityaDhaka,
Your assumptions [not squeaky-clean facts, by the way] are noted. The history of your assumptions ought to be researched, because they are not all that antiquated as you may assume. But, I know that rese arch is tedious, particularly when using the internet as the vehicle because you don't necessarily know how credentialed your reading material is, and that is a vital knowledge. The APA, and its DSM on the subject of homosexuality were not accepted as fully mainstream until 2013. Oops. I'm just a little older than that, and what I consider "ethics" is likely polar opposite from your, by comparison, infantile experience. Sorry, that's the breaks of cultural exposure. Maybe next time, try to initiate your own debates and try to limit the age and cultural norms of your voters. You can try, anyway.
If you block every one who disagrees with your cultural setting, you may find this site a lonely place.
My vote: R1
Pro forfeited R1, but the participants, through Comments, agreed upon a a solution to avoid penalty to pro for the. Unintended forfeiture, so that’s a null concern.
Con’s R1 passed on an opportunity to declare his own definitions of keywords since Pro did not do so in either the Description of the debate, nor in R1 - a tactical error of Con’s own. That has far-reaching consequence. Con does attempt to argue what love is not - a curious, and ineffective approach, in keeping with the relative shyness of definition by both participants. Love is ethical, and does foster prevention and change and caring to alter perceived bad behavior. It does not control, coerce, or shame. Arguing against the former, and for the latter is the negative approach to love that Con suggests.
Con ends with another reverse argument of what love is not; but rather than admit that love does not attempt by force to be someone else, Con argues that this is the flaw in the Resolve, by parental force to be someone else. But that is not love’s definition; it is coercion’s definition.
My vote; R2
Pro argues that Con “…did not add the parents perspective. Which, I believe, is crucial in this debate.” Indeed, crucial since it is a keyword of the Resolve. Pro follows with “I agree with you, coercive conversation therapy is harmful and overall unethical. Ok but here’s the thing: not every parents who struggle with their child’s gender/identity engages in conversation therapy. They’re merely trying to protect their long preserved culture/religion.” That is entirely in keeping with the Resolve as a parent’s ethical objective. This argument is the best at targeting the pro BoP of this Resolve: “Religious frameworks don’t revolve around self-expression or modern cultural norms. They revolve around obedience to divine law. If a parent genuinely believes that homosexual behavior is sinful and puts their child at risk spiritually — then acting to prevent that behavior isn’t hatred, it’s moral duty.”
Con’s R2 declares, “My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion. Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?” No, Con ignores the pro R2 argument just cited above, which allows for religion AND secular “moral duty,” and that Pro recognizes religion’s boundary with “modern cultural norms: that may not be uniquely religious. Con then argues, “Parents can guide. They cannot rewire.” Substitute “homosexual” with “criminal” behavior, and then try to make that rebuttal stick. Con is attempting to define parental love as only with regard to the latter behavior, but not the former.
That’s a failed argument.
My vote: R3
Pro’s summary seals the deal: “He [Con] hasn’t touched it [the Reesolve]. He’s just performing. And performances don’t win debates. Arguments do.”
Con’s summary is “No. The topic is this. What has a parent's religious belief have to do with anyone's gender?” Con summarizes by attempt to change the Resolve, but, he accepted the Resolve as is by accepting the debate challenge , and that statement does not relate to the given Resolve, it is Con’s summary of his 3 rounds of failed arguments.
I said your "can be" was a joke, that Pro won by argument. You missed the entire point that the win was by pointing out the distinction between your accused practice and the Resolve's point of form by the very word. Hey, you know you did; it was your hammer all four rounds. Form, my friend, is an ideal, not necessarily a practice, though you admit it can be a practice that we treat one another by the form.
Con's argument in R2 of Hitler's rise to power is a mish-mash citation of an article with poor math mistakes I'll let y'all figure out in detail. Doesn't really matter, because Hitler did not win the election, but took power anyway, very uin-democratically. Con says, because the article says that Hitler had 37% of the election results and that 37% is 75% of 51%, therefore, a majority of the vote. An election total would be 100% of the vote total, not 51%, yeah? Hitler, and the article writer ignored 49% of the voters. A mistake is published as fact, and read and cited as fact. Oops.
la créativité n'est pas une activité basée sur le temps ou sur les outils. elle est dans la tête, qui domine les deux autres.
that needs saying only once
I suggest that's up to you, but having already forfeited 3/5 of rounds, you're in a tough spot.
Go out and live on the edge! What's somebody gong to do? Delete your drawing? Screw 'em.
I voter for your drawing
I'm, just glad the thumb isn't jammed up the nose
If you delete this vote, you'll delete the most rational response to this debate, and it fulfills the close of the Description.
Besides, I'm confused by fathers and sons who look like twins
To participants, readers and voters: please read my eighth line which currently says: "...by arguing that abortion and homosexuality are not linked by any common thread..." by deleting "not." That is not wha was meant. Therefore, read as "by arguing that abortion and homosexuality are linked by any common thread..." Thanks.
I am amused by the expectation that only empiric evidence can reveal truth when that evidence not only apparently depends on our limited 5 senses - and at that, potentially limited by our perspective - when there are other animals which have those senses, plus more, such as echo location and sensitivity to Earth's magnetic field and to magnetic north, and there are other examples. Should we be able to learn these other senses, would not our "empiric evidence" sources increase in number, thus acknowledge our limitations of establishing empiric evidence? And as that is true, and it is currently being proven that we apparently have the ability to learn some of these added senses, why would we continue to insist we have only five on which to establish "fact" - always tempered by perspective, which is why we "knew" for centuries that Earth centers the universe, simply because that was our demonstrable perspective, when we know now it is not true? Why then should we dismiss faith as one of these potential learned senses beyond our five many of us currently lack? One reason: we insist that belief and faith are synonymous. What if that, like an Earth-centered universe, is not true, after all?
Sorry to mention that this debate simply got too wordy: It is over 31,000 words, which fill in excess of 100 page of 8.5 x 11, Times New Roman 12 pt. font, single space, but for paragraph separation. It could have allowed 300,000 words in the 5 rounds had both participants taken their full allotted 30,000 words per round. Most publishers refuse to read that much in a single publishing submission, let alone publish it. Neither participant consumed as many words as needed to fill the Quran or the Bible, but both volumes contain much more enlightening information than this debate, which even has the participants arguing past each other rather than with each other, simply because they never agreed on the REsolution, but debated anyway. Certainly many debate voters will tire of what words did fill this debate at even 10% of the allotted total. Many have in the past. Any voter who wishes to consume that much for analysis, go ahead; make my day. I for one have other tasks of more pressing engagement. I am working on a solution to the problem of how to make the lint in my pockets a successful fire retardant.
Kidding, but, really, guys?
I have not yet read the debate, but my current mode of avoiding voting is riot intended to last too long, and surely within the nearly 25 days allotted for voting will not pass without a personal decision to vote on this debate. The Resolution is sound, regardless of argument in comments of Description points. David, I think you've given a perfect model of what Description is intended to do, and rightly point out the Description is clarification/definition, and not the the Resolution, which should be the only respective argument/rebuttal BoPs.
I advise new and seasoned debaters to study this model and use it in their debate challenges. Besides, modal logic is delicious.
As I have sworn off voting for the time being, I will comment here that the Library of Medicine of the U.S. has defined "trans" as a genetic condition by which one is born and is not either XX, nor XY, but variable alterations of both, but also that only 0.000007% of the 8B humans populating Earth exhibit these varied conditions in the 23rd pair of chromosomes, which amounts to about 500 individuals, worldwide; about 3 people per country on average. As people claiming to be "trans" far exceeds this number, the balance making the claim have a head trip, ergo, choice, whether they realize the ramifications of the choice, or not. Many apparently do not, because their 23rd chromosome says XX or XY in 99.9999% of them..
This debate is, now half-complete, shaping up to be a very good debate worthy of voting on. I encourage members to do so. It may be one in which [not to put too fine a point on drama] is not won until the final round. I'm curious why it has not attracted more attention here in the gallery. Is this an over-debated issue? Seems members are still willing to use the Forum in open discussion of two of three most frequently visited topics, politics and religion [with the third being, in my estimation, the absurd topic of gaming, in which I don't think I have entered a single posting in 5 years. If I have, it is to express this sentiment].
I onrt3ended to include Fishchaser as a recipient, butte is no longer on site. I apologize for missing voting on this debate, because it is a subject that has personally effect. However, I did read the arguments and references and found, on the whole, that I would have voted for Savant, even though I am probably closer to Fishchaser in sentiment. Fishchaser's biblical sources were, for the most part, inaccurate, or at least in some cases limited to O.T. consideration of things which were fulfilled [ergo, altered, from law of Moses consideration, which is how they ought to be understood today]. For example, the complete interdiction of consuming wine by Pro's argument should, if true, enforce the consumption of some other liquid for purposes of the Eucharist/Sacrament, but wine is the typical representation of Christ's blood, "shed for us." And the notion that the ancients, mentioning wine, must have always been fresh grape juice simply ignores the common phenomenon that fermentation is, without any fancy equipment or chemical addition, a natural process even if intent was that it remain grape juice. Besides, in antiquity, if one fell off his ass or cart, he injures himself, and likely no one else. We cannot claim the same today by our transport vehicles.. Secondly, the notion that "plant urine" is a real thing is pure fantasy to a well-trained botanist. Plants do not urinate, pure and simple. The moniker is as absurd as expecting the climate to have Camelot-type rain and snow only after sunset, and July and August cannot be too hot. Utter nonsense. And, son of a gun, Genesis 9: 3 tells us meat is for food. That's a few chapters away from the creation story, but, so what? The verse is quite specific; man is to be an omnivore. We have enzymes in our created physiology the which entire purpose is the breakdown of flesh, not just vegetable matter. We have canine teeth, not for tearing leaves. Those are properly chewed. Although Savant did not cover all these arguments, he covered enough to clearly overwhelm Pro's arguments and rebuttals.
Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given, as I said, more than just a citied sentence, and yet was twice removed. Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria. Two entire debates of multiple rounds of text, each, which needed to be absorbed, and I did, and considered them sufficient to meet a not-so clarified standard. What do you require, personally, the citation of a bible? You have made many votes of loss by forfeit, only, when the opposing winner had very poor quality of argument, let alone sourcing. No, I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range. Either you feel there is value to sourcing, or you do not. Apparently not. As I said, you've destroyed any value I see in making an effort of voting under any circumstance. Thanks a lot.
Edition: I addressed this to Barney, to whom was my first referenced recipient; David was the last, but ended up being primary recipient somehow.
Having been on debate teams in high school, being its captain in senior year, and in university, the idea that sourcing is "optional" anytime is ignorant. But I even had a debate on the subject and lost it, here, so I get it: "debate" according to DA is bullshyte. I've offered suggestions before, but this old man is ignored. Yeah, I get it.
I find this double vote removal for sourcing to be absurd. The very first notice of judgment on sourcing is that, even for a multiple-criterion debate, the sourcing vote is OPTIONAL, but that contradicts the point by saying "Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof." I felt that though Pro had but two sources, those sources were not, imo, mere quoted sentences from a source, but two entire debates which met the standard of "Better supporters their case." Conversely, Con's solitary source, a definition, was a chosen source that defined an irrelevancy of "forfeit;" a legal definition not having any relation to the debate subject at all, complying with "A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case" from the voting policy.
I found the following statement directly contradictory as a vagary followed by a specific: "A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration." I contend this is not sufficient to remove a vote, twice. Clean up the language of the policy, or stop making a point of discouraging voting. You have succeeded in the latter. You make no encouragement for membrfs to vote, which kind defeats the whole purpose of an entire section of the site.
I've re-voted, noticing I omitted an important point I wanted to reference in regard to your round 3 cited sources of DA debates - a superb sourcing for this debate. Con did have a source, however, a definition. of "forfeit" in R2, but it was a legal definition, unrelated to the subject of debate forfeit, so I ignored it, though mentioned it.
I have posted my R1 argument/rebuttal, posts 5,4,3 [read in that order for continuity
Con Round 1 [06/16/2025]
Considering the religious nature of this debate, in my debate rounds, though I am neither Protestant, non-denominational, nor Catholic [I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], I will use the King James Version of the Holy Bible [KJV] as it is recognized by 49% of Christians in America [a singular majority] and 55% of Protestants, which, collectively, are the highest percentage of Christians in the U.S. As this site is headquartered in the U.S., it becomes the jurisdiction of preference, using the KJV for reference for my debate rounds 1-4 on this Resolution.
In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:
I Argument: What is "reasonable?"
I.a Being a Resolution keyword, I suggest "reasonable" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to an unbiased alternative; the law: In Black's Law Dictionary, "reasonable" is defined as "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances." A secular definition: according to the OED, "fair, sensible, just and moderate." These definitions emphasize an objective standard that will suit our purposes, concentrating on the information in both citations.
I.b Therefore, what is "fair, proper, moderate, sensible, just" [fpmsj] for Gnosticism to be/not be our separate Burden of Proof [BoP]]? "...under the circumstances;" meaning, in this debate's exclusive case, to either support or defeat the Resolution. That is, strictly speaking, the limit of either participant's BoP.
I.c Gnostic Christianity [G.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven to assist humanity in spiritual improvement. They believe "redemption" occurs through the revelation of secret knowledge.
I.c.1 "Secret knowledge" is not attainable, by definition [secret = restricted access], to the ordinary person. That is, it is not accessible to all, or it would not be secret, or sacred, would it?
I.d Whereas Modern Christianity [M.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven, as the Son of God, to redeem from death by resurrection., They believe Jesus is the direct cause of their redemption from death by virtue of his multi-purposed act of atonement.* "And he [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1.d.1 *The atonement is recognized separately by separate denominations of M.C as being accomplished for different purposes, some shared, some not. I shall not use these separate purposes but one; redemption from death, which all M.C accept relating to "redemption," but is generally rejected by M.C as a specific function of "redemption," as explained below [R1, I.e, I.e.1, I.e.2].
Sources:
[1] https://research.lifeway.com/2014/03/17/majority-of-americans-still-prefer-king-james/
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989
[4] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[5] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 16: 16
[6] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 22
[7] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] I John 2: 2
[9] https://yogainternational.com/article/view/gnostic-texts-reveal-jesus-in-a-new-light/?srsltid=AfmBOorgY5157EQj7jlWE9RDGUGAtbH0-J3qbIIAeKnMZTMF6H8nW4VS
Round 1
I.e "Redemption," then, since both G.C and M.C use the term, cannot be viewed fairly by a third, unbiased party, as meaning the same thing. This fact places further weight on the keyword, "reasonable," and its conditional "under the circumstances."
I.e.1 Redemption [G.C]: attainment of secret knowledge to improve spirituality.
I.e.2 Redemption [M.C.]: restored from death by resurrection, directly due to Jesus Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept."
I.f Therefore, it is not "reasonable" to accept that a "[fpmsj]", i.e. "reasonable" person under the circumstance of secrecy, to have access to secret knowledge as being the "more reasonable" condition. Whereas, the knowledge of, and effect of Christ's redemption from death is freely accessible to all without exception as well as without any knowledge whatsoever, secret or otherwise. This must include even persons born on Earth who have never heard of Jesus Christ, such as persons living deep in forests of the Amazon, or Africa, or elsewhere void of broadcast communication, even in print media in an appropriate language. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." No secret knowledge necessary, and available to all unconditionally without asking. Is there any religious doctrine more reasonable, or civilized even in a secular and legal sense, let alone religious? Even confirmed atheists, and even Satan-worshippers, murderers, rapists, and thieves, and the utterly ignorant through no fault of their own, either now or in all times past, have access to redemption, m.C-style. Therefore, the Resolution, "Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity," is defeated.
Sources:
[10] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 20
[11] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 22
Round 1:
II Rebuttal:
II.a Pro's R1 claim, "the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering..." is not correct. Witness: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent..." and "...I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
II.a.1 These near-opening and closing statements of John's Chapter 17 express not suffering as a foundation, but love, and is a promise to all who have and will express in word and deed their obedience to the two commandments offered by Christ when asked to expound on the "great commandment in the law." "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ...And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Who is our neighbor? Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7, inclusive] that our neighbor ultimately includes our enemy, so, it is everyone.
II.b Pro's R1 further claimed, "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful." However, Christ declared, not in secret, but openly; "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Being perfect for as long as God has been perfect, it can be presumed that his perfection includes benevolence and omnipotence on demand, if not needed on all occasions.
11.b.1 I learned as a novice Six Sigma Black Belt, an industrial manufacturing management certification, that "Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process." We may not achieve perfection in all things in this mortal lifetime, but that we can become perfect in performance of some simple processes, such as brushing teeth, is foregone conclusion. The more; the better.
II.c Pro closes R1 with an argument that "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale," claiming that prior to civilization men acted like savages [and still do, but on a larger scale than prior to civilization]. But Pro ignores that civilized people [including early biblical generations] could also be righteous people: "And Jared begat Enoch... And Enoch begat Methuselah... And Enoch walked with God... [implying that he was righteous]... And Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God took him."
II.c.1 Paul admonished us "...as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." Though the natural man seeks evil, and is an enemy to God, the man filled with grace is righteous by word and deed. This is the man Pro ignores in his argument of the skeptical Gnostic.
II.d Pro's R1 cited https://gnosticismexplained.org/ which states "Gnosis was salvation through mystical union with the divine..." Mysticism is not exactly how Christ defines his Gospel message. Mysticism is defined as, "A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection." A definition of "nons-" and "nots," which begs the question, How does one prove a negative?" I think Christ's direct, open, mystic-free suggestion to "love you neighbor" is far more productive, and accessible.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot. To you I pass Round 2.
Sources:
[12] Holy Bible [KJV] John 17; 3, 26
[13] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 22: 37, 39
[14] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 44
[15] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 48
[16] CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 5th Edition, 2022
[17] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 5; 18-24
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Corinthians 8: 7
[19] https://gnosticismexplained.org/
Re; your #4 post;
Yes, and all those sources are basically reading each other, none of them have credible sourcing of their own such as to a pure researched and peer-reviewed article with back-up scientific data to sustain the claims made, such as the claim that 10% of all carbon emission is from the fashion industry. You made the claim that discarded fashion takes hundreds of years to decompose [after claiming it is not biodegradable at all!] but a large tree can take that long as well, and that is an entirely organic thing. Same with dinosaurs, only they could take much, much longer to decompose. So, decomposition is no argument in your favor.
Voting notes:
Pro claimed in R1 [not sourced] "the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions.' I entered this string as a search string and found about a half-dozen [there were more, but I stopped looking] sites making the same exact claim, but none were credible, science-based articles with attributable studied coming to that conclusion. They are all using much the same verbiage without sourcing their information, either. This is a prevalent problem with the internet. Everyone claims data without sourcing their data, and saying it in much the same language, leaving the suspicion that they're reading the same source articles, and none of them have credible proof of the claim, just borrowing from one another, which essentially counts as rumor, not fact.
Are you going to be entering an argument? There's only 3 hours and change.
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
I vote to render decision of my observations of debates, but also to help new site members on the underlying debate protocol that will lead to better debating. I'm 75, and have debated since high school, even in a variety of professional functions, so it is a familiar exercise. I make mistakes, too, so please do not take this as assuming I am an expert. I hope I can be a help. Take it in that light. As attributes go, I learned a lot about cats from your argument I did not know before as I have never had one as a pet. I'm allergic to them, as it happens [their dander causes extreme nasal congestion], but not to dogs, of which I've had several.
Then you misunderstand what I meant by "purpose" in defining, by argument, "Better." As I said, "As a pet? As human or property protection? As something to kick around?" "Better" needs to have that explanation, and neither of you satisfied that threshold. I did not mention that the only description is: "Everyone knows it's true," which amounts to a truism. that advantages Pro., and that cannot be by an instigator.
You both argued for attriv Ute's of dogs and cats, and that's fine for a debate that is abut attributes. But attributes is not tree resolution, is it?
Read the debate instructions relative to "truism" and voting on that principle. You know why I did not, but you'll notice I am a frequent voter. In fact, I rank in the topi ten [#7] of all who vote on debates, and in the top 20 [#14] of all debaters who debate [over 1,200 of us].
Both participants forfeited half the scheduled rounds, and made only claims of what amounts to "better," a nebulous term on which to debate any resolution. "Better," for what purpose? As a pet? As human or property protection? As something to kick around? Neither deserve a vote.
As you know, I continue [I think] to have issues entering arguments in the argument section of debates and must use comments for posting rounds and have no intent to forfeit rounds. If you're agreeable to that. pls. let me know. I think this would be a good debate for us. I'm okay with limiting the modern Christian perspective as you have defined it.