Like Whitflame, I'm intrigued with this subject, but I have two conditions:
1. Con [you] cannot use a religious morality [playing God, for example] to argue against the premise, since "society" is the section you've placed the debate.
2. I fail to see the sense of waiving arguments. If you only want 3 rounds of debate, declare 3 rounds. I believe instigator, pro or con, should make the first argument, and the respondent has the last word.
Venberg, I congratulate you on your presentations over the four rounds. Very well done, easy to follow, and well documented by sources. I also appreciate your candor, while remaining positively civil throughout. Regardless of the outcome, it has been a pleasure debating with you, and I look forward to another debate in the near future. Thank you very much for a lively and challenging debate!
Moreover, relative to my post #13, according to U.S. Nav archives, the U.S.S. Eldridge was never near Philadelphia during the alleged "experiment," and ship's log shows no mention of said "experiment," nor its alleged effects., although both issues are part of the movie of that name produced by New World Pictures in 1984. It's a fiction, along with, to date, the evidence of teleportation from anywhere to anywhere.
Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."
Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.
I'm just going to say this here, and not make it part of my vote verbiage, but I've come to believe a debate posed by using an interrogative is not the best form. I've done it myself, so I'm not throwing stones, other than at me. For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1805/are-democrats-tired-of-losing-against-trump
So, avoiding that bad form, I'll vote...
Lest any question my resolve in conducting this debate in taking the contrary view, I remind readers to review my commentary in post #10, accepting this debate. I took the debate knowing I was arguing against my own conviction that Jesus was and is an historic figure. The proof of that is in my heart, where no man can assail and no man deceives. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as was so eloquently repeated by Peter upon the question from his Master, "Whom say ye that I am?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he is the Christ, the Lamb of God.
I have modified the verbiage of the full description, removing the "unconstitutional" reference, exchanging it for violation of House Rules. You are correct, the Con issue will not be successfully engaged by demonstrating the constitutionality of the vacating, however, House Rules are affected by it.
Just not pragmatic? Why? Just because it happens to be composed 230 years ago and not 30 years ago, or 3 years ago? Well, my friend, there's a different Constitution composed 2,000 years ago which, as a code of conduct, as a document of rights and privileges, and even as a political platform, let alone a document of proper morality, exceeds theConstitution of the United States, as lofty, and relevant a composed set of words that most mysterious of American documents is. It is called the Sermon on the Mount. That document, if followed and lived by as faithfully as some follow the original intent of the Constitution, wold solve every single social ill we suffer today, and will evert suffer into the distant future ahead, just as written originally. It does not even need amendment.
The SOM even exceeds the universal concepts, which it is, itself, the composition of the 10 commandments some 3,500 years ago. Not pragmatic? You'd best look that one up. Use the OED as I suggest.
I'll just say this: There's a reason why my preferred dictionary, the OED, holds that personal distinction. It is the most complete of any English dictionary in the volume of the words it defines; virtually the entire authorized lexicon. Moreover, it is fully 20 volumes in print because it includes an exhaustive etymology of words defined going back to each word's first historic use. That is invaluable for understanding 18th century syntax, when the Constitution was written. By such etymology, the scope of which all other English dictionaries lack, the Constitution is well understood in time and context. It is not a matter of random interpretation, as Pro suggests. Of course, use an inferior dictionary, you yield random results. That's the fault of the interpreter, not the composer. Therefore, the text is not "open-ended."
You're all qualified to vote. Why no votes with only one day remaining; why just commentary? Come on, does this truly deserve a tie? I'm not trolling for votes; vote by the standards, and may the best debate arguments win.
I've considered your round 4 argument that I enjoined a new argument regarding debt forgiveness as a strategy of financial penalty to China, and you argued in your fourth that such was a violation of debate ethic. However, I figured since you had a remaining rebuttal opportunity as having the final argument that it would not be a violation due to waiving of rounds. If I have erred in that calculation, I apologize.
Yes, I've said that that, but I weighed the options of debating Blamonkey, who had become a friend, and opposition to waiving rounds, and not waiving rounds lost. Blamonkey offered my choice of argument, pro or con, based on my choice of argument in a Forum post. But I've also said that I would argue by a devil's advocate if ned be, because I love debate so much, I'll take a position with which I disagree just for the opportunity to debate it at all. In this case, however, I really do believe a financial penalty is deserved.
I'm afraid, my friend, you missed the entire point of the debate. It is not about only eating quiche, or not eating it, yet that seems to be, other than getting in weeds with rights and gender, the thrust of your argument. Making quiche is the real man part, or real woman, for that matter. Making it is the point, and if you've never made it, you just don't know.
"God is in control" is too open-ended. That He is omnipotent, I don't argue. But, I will argue that just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is compelled to use that power, all the time, every time, else he denies man free agency, as demonstrated by the command in Genesis 2 that Adam could eat of "every tree of the garden." That means from one, several, or every one, including the tree of kowledge. There was a condition set on that particular tree that was not a condition of any other, but Adam was still free to eat of it.
Perhaps if my opponent would fill something in on the profile, instead of accepting and reflecting "unknown," gender and other items would not be in question, yeah? I was merely generalizing and non-misogynous
Full forfeiture was the judgment against your opponent, however, you were on a genealogical course in your argument with regard to Trump's father, U.S. born, and his grandfather, German-born. We can't know what was in Trump's head, but, the fact remains that since his grandfather was German, therefore, Trump is, effectively 1/6 German [two sets of grandparents plus one set of parents - six contributors to his genome], so could rightly consider himself ore than 1/6 German, let alone saying his father was [German by ancestry of both parents, American only by legal immigration]. Another way of looking at it, a grandfather is, in essence, a genealogical father.
Holy sacred cows redeem us!!! [sorry, mean no disrespect to Hindus or cows - just an expletive I couldn't delete!] I'll read with interest, and, of course, a measure of skepticism. What, we're opponents, yeah? although I'll gladly carry your water.
How do you propose we collect anything from China ?
>>Since the WTO lacks the power to impose penalty for one of China's most flagrant violations, currency manipulation, I suggest WTO be ignored, other than removing China's MFN status. Every nation should acquire the brass ones to impose calculated tariffs, as Trump did.
Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.
>>Yes, he can, and other nations, as in #1.
Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?
>>Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal.
I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.
Research is a waste of time? No wonder you complain. Yes, your claims of bankruptcy on everyone else come too close to home. Just working for money rather than the alternative? Put your money to work for you, which is why Donald Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy. However, as the former scion of a 500+ company empire, he has used corporate bankruptcy of a few companies to stop their lack of productivity. It's a tool to protect the other companies from the drain of non-productivity. You would know that with research.
Ah, welcome User! Let's have fun with this one. Yes, I agree, we debate the title, not the description. Good luck [although I really don't understand why you oppose. Never ate a good quiche, I guess. Well, there's still time, my friend. To the kitchen, then! or not...
Like Whitflame, I'm intrigued with this subject, but I have two conditions:
1. Con [you] cannot use a religious morality [playing God, for example] to argue against the premise, since "society" is the section you've placed the debate.
2. I fail to see the sense of waiving arguments. If you only want 3 rounds of debate, declare 3 rounds. I believe instigator, pro or con, should make the first argument, and the respondent has the last word.
Venberg, I congratulate you on your presentations over the four rounds. Very well done, easy to follow, and well documented by sources. I also appreciate your candor, while remaining positively civil throughout. Regardless of the outcome, it has been a pleasure debating with you, and I look forward to another debate in the near future. Thank you very much for a lively and challenging debate!
Moreover, relative to my post #13, according to U.S. Nav archives, the U.S.S. Eldridge was never near Philadelphia during the alleged "experiment," and ship's log shows no mention of said "experiment," nor its alleged effects., although both issues are part of the movie of that name produced by New World Pictures in 1984. It's a fiction, along with, to date, the evidence of teleportation from anywhere to anywhere.
As Melcharaz suggested, this appears to be a semantics debate, turning not on the word "food," but "consumption."
Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."
Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.
I'm just going to say this here, and not make it part of my vote verbiage, but I've come to believe a debate posed by using an interrogative is not the best form. I've done it myself, so I'm not throwing stones, other than at me. For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1805/are-democrats-tired-of-losing-against-trump
So, avoiding that bad form, I'll vote...
Lest any question my resolve in conducting this debate in taking the contrary view, I remind readers to review my commentary in post #10, accepting this debate. I took the debate knowing I was arguing against my own conviction that Jesus was and is an historic figure. The proof of that is in my heart, where no man can assail and no man deceives. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as was so eloquently repeated by Peter upon the question from his Master, "Whom say ye that I am?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he is the Christ, the Lamb of God.
I have modified the verbiage of the full description, removing the "unconstitutional" reference, exchanging it for violation of House Rules. You are correct, the Con issue will not be successfully engaged by demonstrating the constitutionality of the vacating, however, House Rules are affected by it.
Thanks for voting with the detailed analysis.
Thanks for voting
Thank you. I reviewed the voting policy in detail before casting my vote and felt I was within the guidelines.
Sorry, did not see your reply before close of voting. Did not affect outcome
Ragnar, as noted in my post #9, I erred in actual assignment of points, contrary to my text. Can this be corrected? I don't know how.
Yes, textually, I gave yo the point, but erred in the actual assignment of the point. I don't know how to change that.
Just not pragmatic? Why? Just because it happens to be composed 230 years ago and not 30 years ago, or 3 years ago? Well, my friend, there's a different Constitution composed 2,000 years ago which, as a code of conduct, as a document of rights and privileges, and even as a political platform, let alone a document of proper morality, exceeds theConstitution of the United States, as lofty, and relevant a composed set of words that most mysterious of American documents is. It is called the Sermon on the Mount. That document, if followed and lived by as faithfully as some follow the original intent of the Constitution, wold solve every single social ill we suffer today, and will evert suffer into the distant future ahead, just as written originally. It does not even need amendment.
The SOM even exceeds the universal concepts, which it is, itself, the composition of the 10 commandments some 3,500 years ago. Not pragmatic? You'd best look that one up. Use the OED as I suggest.
I'll just say this: There's a reason why my preferred dictionary, the OED, holds that personal distinction. It is the most complete of any English dictionary in the volume of the words it defines; virtually the entire authorized lexicon. Moreover, it is fully 20 volumes in print because it includes an exhaustive etymology of words defined going back to each word's first historic use. That is invaluable for understanding 18th century syntax, when the Constitution was written. By such etymology, the scope of which all other English dictionaries lack, the Constitution is well understood in time and context. It is not a matter of random interpretation, as Pro suggests. Of course, use an inferior dictionary, you yield random results. That's the fault of the interpreter, not the composer. Therefore, the text is not "open-ended."
Bitte.
Are you getting tired of winning, yet? Nope, keep it up
Congratulations, again!
Congratulations on your win, my friend. Well argued on your part, even if your opponent forfeited against superior argument.
References for round 1"
1 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed37.asp
2 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
3 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
4 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/midcol.htm
5 http://candst.tripod.com/jaspltrs.htm
6 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
7 ibid
Thanks for voting
thanks for voting
You're all qualified to vote. Why no votes with only one day remaining; why just commentary? Come on, does this truly deserve a tie? I'm not trolling for votes; vote by the standards, and may the best debate arguments win.
That was the root of my argument, which also means that God, by choice, is not the total cause of anything
Thanks for voting with a detailed analysis.
It's all good. and you're welcome. Glad to help a student any time since I never plan to lose that moniker myself.
I've considered your round 4 argument that I enjoined a new argument regarding debt forgiveness as a strategy of financial penalty to China, and you argued in your fourth that such was a violation of debate ethic. However, I figured since you had a remaining rebuttal opportunity as having the final argument that it would not be a violation due to waiving of rounds. If I have erred in that calculation, I apologize.
Yes, I've said that that, but I weighed the options of debating Blamonkey, who had become a friend, and opposition to waiving rounds, and not waiving rounds lost. Blamonkey offered my choice of argument, pro or con, based on my choice of argument in a Forum post. But I've also said that I would argue by a devil's advocate if ned be, because I love debate so much, I'll take a position with which I disagree just for the opportunity to debate it at all. In this case, however, I really do believe a financial penalty is deserved.
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
I'm afraid, my friend, you missed the entire point of the debate. It is not about only eating quiche, or not eating it, yet that seems to be, other than getting in weeds with rights and gender, the thrust of your argument. Making quiche is the real man part, or real woman, for that matter. Making it is the point, and if you've never made it, you just don't know.
"God is in control" is too open-ended. That He is omnipotent, I don't argue. But, I will argue that just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is compelled to use that power, all the time, every time, else he denies man free agency, as demonstrated by the command in Genesis 2 that Adam could eat of "every tree of the garden." That means from one, several, or every one, including the tree of kowledge. There was a condition set on that particular tree that was not a condition of any other, but Adam was still free to eat of it.
Thanks for voting
<<If you actually believe I give a rats arse winning a debate against fools like you, then I have a bridge to sell you!>>
Accusation of foolishness is exploring in the mirror. Have no use of a bridge, thanks. See to someone who cares.
If you spent half the energy in your overload of debates as you do in comments, you might win a couple of them.
Great arguments
Perhaps if my opponent would fill something in on the profile, instead of accepting and reflecting "unknown," gender and other items would not be in question, yeah? I was merely generalizing and non-misogynous
Cool. I'm also working on thoughts for my round 3, my last.
I wonder if my opponent has abandoned the debate; profile indicates has not been on the site in a month...
Full forfeiture was the judgment against your opponent, however, you were on a genealogical course in your argument with regard to Trump's father, U.S. born, and his grandfather, German-born. We can't know what was in Trump's head, but, the fact remains that since his grandfather was German, therefore, Trump is, effectively 1/6 German [two sets of grandparents plus one set of parents - six contributors to his genome], so could rightly consider himself ore than 1/6 German, let alone saying his father was [German by ancestry of both parents, American only by legal immigration]. Another way of looking at it, a grandfather is, in essence, a genealogical father.
I've made vindaloo. It's fabulous! good all.
>. accomplishing absolutely nothing!
Depends on who you are, bud. Worked for me. For who else am I responsible? You?
Been there. No prob, it's all good. just don't think I'll have a response for a couple of days. glad you left some daaaaaaaays for response.
Holy sacred cows redeem us!!! [sorry, mean no disrespect to Hindus or cows - just an expletive I couldn't delete!] I'll read with interest, and, of course, a measure of skepticism. What, we're opponents, yeah? although I'll gladly carry your water.
How do you propose we collect anything from China ?
>>Since the WTO lacks the power to impose penalty for one of China's most flagrant violations, currency manipulation, I suggest WTO be ignored, other than removing China's MFN status. Every nation should acquire the brass ones to impose calculated tariffs, as Trump did.
Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.
>>Yes, he can, and other nations, as in #1.
Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?
>>Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal.
I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.
Research is a waste of time? No wonder you complain. Yes, your claims of bankruptcy on everyone else come too close to home. Just working for money rather than the alternative? Put your money to work for you, which is why Donald Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy. However, as the former scion of a 500+ company empire, he has used corporate bankruptcy of a few companies to stop their lack of productivity. It's a tool to protect the other companies from the drain of non-productivity. You would know that with research.
I will use comments as I please, thanks. Comments are not part of the debate. Yes, I use PMs frequently. You'll notice I did not direct #5 to anybody
Ah, welcome User! Let's have fun with this one. Yes, I agree, we debate the title, not the description. Good luck [although I really don't understand why you oppose. Never ate a good quiche, I guess. Well, there's still time, my friend. To the kitchen, then! or not...