There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.
When I initiate a debate, I usually have my first argument ready to post, and the second well in mind if not started. As it happens, they're both composed now, but for anticipated rebuttal. This will be a bloody long debate. Tick
I've already been to bernie.com [ref [11] in first round. It won't be the last, even if Pro abdicates the debate. The pick of Pocawannapotus is a telling sign.
In your vote, you declare wonder of which God is being debated. Hint: Read the debate proposal, "The God of Christianity does not exist." If your vote is as careless as your wonder... Hmmm?
Nope. Omnivore all the way. I have incisors and canines. They're to tear flesh. There is an enzyme in saliva which sole purpose is to begin the digestion of flesh.
I will allege that the "truth" that the earth is flat is "not even close to reaching the truth," yet, it was believed as true. Show me. Show us in your arguments that truth is a human construct because I don't believe that, either. Nor that truth exists only by human language. Going to have to demonstrate that, too.
What is true is true past, present, future. What varies is perception of truth. Example: the world was once perceived flat, but the truth was known far in the distant past by merely climbing a mountain high enough to witness for one's self the arc of the horizon. The truth did not change; merely the perception of it.
With all due respect to my opponent, he has concluded his rounds of argument in the debate, and comments is not where the debate is extended until after voting is concluded, per the site policy indicated below, Under [debates/how it works]
"The post voting
The debate is considered finished and the users are encouraged to discuss it in the comments section."
You: "I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before."
But you ignore that this second debate proposal is a virtual quote from our previous debate. My quote. So, take your claim from your #4, #6, let alone your reference in your round 2 argument and strike them because your claim is not true. You, you, you, and no one but you made the reference to our previous debate before anybody else in this debate. Period.
Drop it.
Are you really going to contend that your debate proposal is NOT cross-thread contamination, being nearly a direct quote from our previous debate??? Motes and beams, my friend. Sticks and stones.
My opponent said, to begin round 2: "My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this." Yes, I brought up our previous debate, still in debate mode https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021/there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
in my round 1.
I will remind my opponent that he is the initiator of this debate, and that his debate proposal, "I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude," is a virtual direct quote of my round 3, argument I.d in the above referenced debate: "'I can’t' is a defeatist’s attitude," but changed to its negative counterpart.
"...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7: 3
Let the readers take note.
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
Normally, I would vote on this debate, but I'm afraid my extensive experience in the PRC precludes an objective voting platform on my part. I am too personally aware of the corruption in the Chinese media and its government to believe anything that either institution says. Further, understanding that Con may have no experience other than reading the media and government reports from China, and those outside China in support of China, including WHO, I would be inclined to reject all Con sourcing, and, therefore, arguments. Therefore, I am not voting in this debate. My apologies.
The original text, as written in my round 1 of our debate [regarding who should be the authority to determine the number of simultaneous debates we would be allowed to engage]: "Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?"
Is context really so difficult to conceive for the usage of "superlative?" Maybe you're using an inferior dictionary [or a more inferior Google]. My OED offers not just grammar & definition, but complete historic etymology. That's why the unabridged version is fully 20 volumes, and supplied with a magnifying glass because the print is a 6-point font.
Still looking to have someone else define for you, huh? Start with looking up "I can't," since you believe it is a good attitude. It isn't. The issue is not "I can't." It's "I won't."
"I do not understand your judgment." I never said Pro's argument lacked intelligence. I said it exhibited intelligence, in agreement with Con, but I also said the debate was not about relative intelligence, therefore, Con's argument lost the debate.
"In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American." Nope. Take a look in your dictionary; I don't care which it it is if it of your nation's mother tongue. It does not say it is an American Dictionary, does it? The Dictionary I always use is the OED. Yes, a British production, but in it, "bonnet" and "boot" are defined both as Americans understand the sense of these words, as well as the British sense of them. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in parsing details, we parse then out of rational existence, which is what you tried to do with this debate. Stop it.
Good God, step away from yourself for one minute. Of course, some intelligence went into the debate, BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE!!!!!!
The debate was: it is stupid. As I said [again, for the third time: The debate was not about intelligence. It was not "about" anything. The debate was stupid.
Look, there is a painting by Rene Magritte from the early 20th century. It is a painting of a smoking pipe on a plain background. Beneath the image is a phrase, in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. One will wonder, even when fluent in French, what that means because, clearly, it is a picture of a pipe, and you will argue that it is a pipe. No, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. The painting is titled "The Treachery of Images." The image is not the object, just as intelligence was not the nature of the debate.
Like I said, the issue of the debate was NOT relative intelligence. Intelligent people can still do stupid things, yeah? Like accepting a debate that was stupid. Get it?
Your statement, "Whether these actions have been justified (morally or legally) is a separate question that will not be pursued here" is completely counterproductive to debating the issue since it is essentially your argument that Trump's motives have not been justified, morally or legally. Isn't that really the turning point of your proposed debate? To declare that it is not relevant, and will not be part of the debate takes the very core issue out of it. Nice surgery, Doctor, but the patient was not declared a surgical candidate in the first place. Remove that declarative statement in total, I'll be more inclined to debate.
Further, effectively opposing a "morally neutral" position, as Trump is accused of taking, will be an interesting justification for arguing that Trump has done more harm than good. Good luck.
I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.
My access to the internet failed, and I lost track of the schedule needed to present a third round, resulting in forfeit of that round. Having lost having a last round argument, I will publish my conclusion in a day or so.
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
Before a debate is accepted, the initiator can edit anything they want. Once accepted, as whiteflame said, it can no longer be edited. I decided to take the debate as is
There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting.
Thanks for voting
When I initiate a debate, I usually have my first argument ready to post, and the second well in mind if not started. As it happens, they're both composed now, but for anticipated rebuttal. This will be a bloody long debate. Tick
I've already been to bernie.com [ref [11] in first round. It won't be the last, even if Pro abdicates the debate. The pick of Pocawannapotus is a telling sign.
I agree with Virtuoso. Thank you.
Thanks for your commentary. At least you had the decency in your vote to mention both participants and you made a sound judgment between us.
Congratulations on winning the debate. Your arguments were well done, and I thoroughly enjoyed debating the subject.
Thank you for your vote.
In your vote, you declare wonder of which God is being debated. Hint: Read the debate proposal, "The God of Christianity does not exist." If your vote is as careless as your wonder... Hmmm?
Nope. Omnivore all the way. I have incisors and canines. They're to tear flesh. There is an enzyme in saliva which sole purpose is to begin the digestion of flesh.
Thanks for voting
thank you for voting
I will allege that the "truth" that the earth is flat is "not even close to reaching the truth," yet, it was believed as true. Show me. Show us in your arguments that truth is a human construct because I don't believe that, either. Nor that truth exists only by human language. Going to have to demonstrate that, too.
What is true is true past, present, future. What varies is perception of truth. Example: the world was once perceived flat, but the truth was known far in the distant past by merely climbing a mountain high enough to witness for one's self the arc of the horizon. The truth did not change; merely the perception of it.
Superb first argument! Well done. I often tell vegans, "You can keep your rice [the cultivated rice paddies emit methane], but leave my steak alone!"
Fair enough. Apology accepted. AS irt happens, I am a writer by profession
With all due respect to my opponent, he has concluded his rounds of argument in the debate, and comments is not where the debate is extended until after voting is concluded, per the site policy indicated below, Under [debates/how it works]
"The post voting
The debate is considered finished and the users are encouraged to discuss it in the comments section."
Not before.
I thought we had a great debate. Wonder why we're not attracting voters? Well if we tie with no voter, that's crumbled cookies.
The don't vote. My voice is what it is. Sorry to offend, but, that's on you.
Thank you for voting
You: "I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before."
But you ignore that this second debate proposal is a virtual quote from our previous debate. My quote. So, take your claim from your #4, #6, let alone your reference in your round 2 argument and strike them because your claim is not true. You, you, you, and no one but you made the reference to our previous debate before anybody else in this debate. Period.
Drop it.
Are you really going to contend that your debate proposal is NOT cross-thread contamination, being nearly a direct quote from our previous debate??? Motes and beams, my friend. Sticks and stones.
Re: your waive, I think you mean you'll let me show you what I have. No prob.
thanks to both for voting!
My opponent said, to begin round 2: "My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this." Yes, I brought up our previous debate, still in debate mode https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021/there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
in my round 1.
I will remind my opponent that he is the initiator of this debate, and that his debate proposal, "I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude," is a virtual direct quote of my round 3, argument I.d in the above referenced debate: "'I can’t' is a defeatist’s attitude," but changed to its negative counterpart.
"...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7: 3
Let the readers take note.
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote
Normally, I would vote on this debate, but I'm afraid my extensive experience in the PRC precludes an objective voting platform on my part. I am too personally aware of the corruption in the Chinese media and its government to believe anything that either institution says. Further, understanding that Con may have no experience other than reading the media and government reports from China, and those outside China in support of China, including WHO, I would be inclined to reject all Con sourcing, and, therefore, arguments. Therefore, I am not voting in this debate. My apologies.
Thanks, much appreciated
Ma gavte la nata
The original text, as written in my round 1 of our debate [regarding who should be the authority to determine the number of simultaneous debates we would be allowed to engage]: "Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?"
Is context really so difficult to conceive for the usage of "superlative?" Maybe you're using an inferior dictionary [or a more inferior Google]. My OED offers not just grammar & definition, but complete historic etymology. That's why the unabridged version is fully 20 volumes, and supplied with a magnifying glass because the print is a 6-point font.
Still looking to have someone else define for you, huh? Start with looking up "I can't," since you believe it is a good attitude. It isn't. The issue is not "I can't." It's "I won't."
I will remind my opponent that your opportunity to debate the subject has passed. Your rounds are done, as are mine. Stop debating the point.
thanks for voting
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
"I do not understand your judgment." I never said Pro's argument lacked intelligence. I said it exhibited intelligence, in agreement with Con, but I also said the debate was not about relative intelligence, therefore, Con's argument lost the debate.
"In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American." Nope. Take a look in your dictionary; I don't care which it it is if it of your nation's mother tongue. It does not say it is an American Dictionary, does it? The Dictionary I always use is the OED. Yes, a British production, but in it, "bonnet" and "boot" are defined both as Americans understand the sense of these words, as well as the British sense of them. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in parsing details, we parse then out of rational existence, which is what you tried to do with this debate. Stop it.
Good God, step away from yourself for one minute. Of course, some intelligence went into the debate, BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE!!!!!!
The debate was: it is stupid. As I said [again, for the third time: The debate was not about intelligence. It was not "about" anything. The debate was stupid.
Look, there is a painting by Rene Magritte from the early 20th century. It is a painting of a smoking pipe on a plain background. Beneath the image is a phrase, in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. One will wonder, even when fluent in French, what that means because, clearly, it is a picture of a pipe, and you will argue that it is a pipe. No, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. The painting is titled "The Treachery of Images." The image is not the object, just as intelligence was not the nature of the debate.
Like I said, the issue of the debate was NOT relative intelligence. Intelligent people can still do stupid things, yeah? Like accepting a debate that was stupid. Get it?
Yes, I believe I did err in my identification of participants. I will re-cast a vote.
Your statement, "Whether these actions have been justified (morally or legally) is a separate question that will not be pursued here" is completely counterproductive to debating the issue since it is essentially your argument that Trump's motives have not been justified, morally or legally. Isn't that really the turning point of your proposed debate? To declare that it is not relevant, and will not be part of the debate takes the very core issue out of it. Nice surgery, Doctor, but the patient was not declared a surgical candidate in the first place. Remove that declarative statement in total, I'll be more inclined to debate.
Further, effectively opposing a "morally neutral" position, as Trump is accused of taking, will be an interesting justification for arguing that Trump has done more harm than good. Good luck.
Yes, and History.com, too.
I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.
My access to the internet failed, and I lost track of the schedule needed to present a third round, resulting in forfeit of that round. Having lost having a last round argument, I will publish my conclusion in a day or so.
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
Before a debate is accepted, the initiator can edit anything they want. Once accepted, as whiteflame said, it can no longer be edited. I decided to take the debate as is
Does anyone know if Dr. Spy has abandoned the site? Hasn't been here for a month.