eh bien, passionnés de quiche, ma recette pour quiche lorraine, le classique! That double 'rr' better be deep in the back of the throat, this isn't spanish.
can't give you my wife's pie crust recipe; it's a trade secret, but it's buttery, flakey decadence. Sorry, you're on your own.
the custard:
in a bowl, combine:
1.25 C cream Damn you, if you use milk, you are not my friend! Just put away your cholesterol counter, okay? This is not an everyday meal.
4 eggs- fresh-cracked
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp FRESH GRATED nutmeg. if you shake it from a glass jar - I don't care who the label is - you are not my friend
1 Tbs flour - best fresh ground, not store bought, but who has a wheat grinder besides me, and several million of my LDS friends?
blend with a wire whisk. No, do not use your electric blender. [in the kitchen, I'm a purist when it comes to custards. Treat your eggs with respect.
Set aside, you'll be back to it in a minute.
1 C fresh grated cheese. I do a blend, 3/4 C gruyère, 1/4 emmentaler [swiss, but if you find emmentaler, buy it. You're likely not to find g pre-grated. if you do, I wouldn't buy it, anyway.
six slices bacon, pre-cooked until just crisp, then broken into small [1/2" to 3/4"] This can be prepared in advance in stored in a tight container [zip-loc will do] in the fridge.
six crimini [button] mushrooms, sliced 1/4"
Set oven to bake at 350˚ F
If you're making a fresh crust, pre-bake while the oven warms up, about 5 min., then remove. Do the same if you're using a frozen pie crust. Use the deep-dish variety.
Layer the cheese, bacon, and mushroom, a little of each in each layer util you've filled the crust. Do not tamp down, you wanty the custard blen to fill in and around.
RE-whisk the custard mix, and pour it slowly, moving your bowl around over the cheese bend to near the top [don't over flow - you have to pick up the bloody thing to put it in the oven.
Melt 1 Tbs of butter [yes, BUTTER] and pour it slowly around over the surface. If you like, add a few grates of more nutmeg
Bake for 25 minutes - use a timer. Apple HomePod is good, but if you prefer Google, or Aria, or whatever her name is, go ahead. Who's gonna know?
Depending on your oven [I know mine, but all bets are off on yours] open the door and check you quiche with a toothpick. You're likely to need a little more time, may five minutes or so - every oven id different. You're looking for a semi-firm golden brown custard. If it still is soupy, bake more, but WATCH IT. You don't want scrambled eggs. Take it out, let it set for 5 min om the counter, and EAT. slice like an apple pie.
instead of the bacon, you can try caramelized onion, flaked salmon, crab, shrimp, lobster, or whatever floats your boat. Do a veggie with asparagus, broccoli, whatever.
Store-bought frozen???? Yeechhh! If that was your only taste of quiche, you were royally ripped off. It is highly possible that what you had was a frittata masquerading as a quiche. I've had some bad frittata, and some bad quiche [neither out of my kitchen. Get thee to a patisserie
This is a whimsical debate, but, once launched, I will apply the full measure of my argument. Seriously. To me, quiche deserves the effort. Hint: my secret: fresh nutmeg.
Shouldn't one start with finding out:
1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella.
From #3, I would inquire if the instigator is as successful.
You, my friend, are fond of saying I have not yet argued this or that, apparently forgetting I have a round remaining. I hesitated to advise you of this when you first started complaining about a schedule that has and remains mine to manage, regardless of your constant barrage of complaint. That you initiated this debate does not give you licenser to manage my schedule of argument. I say: patience, my friend. All will be revealed in my conclusion. Thanks for playing.
4 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, I, iii
5 Scott, Ridley, Kingdom of Heaven, 20th Century Fox, 2005.
6 Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
7 https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/biologist/job-market/
Well, you hold onto your 24-hour day. It appears precious. But, you must remember it continues to expand in length, even as we speak...
I am not a Christian? News to me. But, thanks for your excommunication. Sorry, not recognized.
Hint: "ibid" is defined as: "in the same source (used to save space in textual references to a quoted work which has been mentioned in a previous reference)."
You don't click on an "ibid" reference; you click on the reference immediately above - in this case, ref #1. And if there are multiple "ibid" references in a string of references, each "ibid" reference refers to the one immediately above the first ibid reference in the string. If you would stop stopping at wiki, you would learn this typical referencing shorthand.
You said, "I purely made a claim this is what Science says." What, the science of NYC schools? The science of wiki?
Come on, dig deeper. You're supposed to win this debate, not me. I even agree with you, but not your science, so far.
Only problem is 2 problems:
1. define "fertilization. It's more than boy meets girl.
2. stop stopping at wiki, goddamit.
3. [there's always more than 2, in spite of what's said] most is not some. be specific.
While I was composing my initial comment, and only after accepting the debate, you have altered your challenge. Is it "personhood" or is it "when life begins?" I submit there is scientific debate even on that. Since the debate title says "personhood," which, again, you have not defined, I will reject any argument from you declaring "when life begins." Make up your mind and hold onto it for a little longer than a few hours.
I accept taking the Con argument, but, yet again [I've done this before] I do so only from a position of it being a challenge because I actually favor the pro argument. However, without given definitions by Pro before the debate begins [in my judgment, definitions, without prior recording, will cause the debate to turn on these factors. If Pro is to take the first round first, these definitions ought to be recorded in the description so that a contender knows what the deal is before the debate begins. Common courtesy, folks.
How do you define "a day?" It's relative scholastically, but, does it really matter in the end since I'll wager you believe God is omnipotent? Or, are there limitations, exceptions? Or, consider that, although omnipotent, God is not compelled to act on the power He has. So, maybe His "day" is not only a 24-hour period, but may be eons in the course of the sun across our sky. In fact, we already know that just 600M years ago, earth's "day" by our modern perspective, was just 21 hours long. Our day is increasing in time even as we speak, increasing by 0.007 seconds every century.
1. You actually trust China's numbers? That's like holding out your hand to an angry dog.
2. The China vs. US and other Euro nations have such a vast difference in population [China 1.4B, and US/Euro, combined, 0.523B] that total death rates just as a hard number does not reflect the total impact of covid-19. You will note that the rating used is deaths per 1,000, or deaths per 100,000, etc. That way, the statistics are normalized taking in account that huge difference in relative populations. By that statistical normalization, China's deths per x exceed USA + Europe, combined. If you don't understand statistics, you're lost. I am a certified six sigma black belt. I am not lost.
I absolutely agree with Blamonkey. This will be a fun debate. So, let's cross swords, sheath them, and come out with words. Something about the pen is mightier than... or some such nonsense. Bonne chance, mon vieux.
Your post #25 alleged that "Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer."
Debate is a process of argument that establishes, first, the nature of the debate [X is the function of Y, for example] and two sides then argue in support of, or against the proposition. Pro/Con is derived from Latin, "Pro et Contra," meaning, literally, "For and Against. In other words, both sides are certain of their arguments. Debate is not the vehicle to move from doubt on a subject to full confidence of understanding. That's another process. It's called learning.
IV.b Faith expanded by God’s continued revelation
However, contrary to Pro’s claim, citing a modified syllogism from Theodore Drange “If the God of Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.” According to whom? Teddy Drange? Who’s he? Well, I know who he is, and he has a doctorate in philosophy and religion. I know of another fellow. Richard Bach. He’s an author. No, he doesn’t have credentials like Drange, but his credentials are biting: “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.” I agree. Who will tell God He cannot reveal anything more than the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible conclude with the verse: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
In truth, how can there be more scripture revealed after that? Well, because as John was writing those words on the Isle of Patmos, the “Holy Bible” did not yet exist; that was not the book to which he referred. It was his book, Revelation, his scroll upon which he was writing. John, having witnessed much, knew better than to limit God.
IV.b.1 Working faith: a new revelation
So I will offer, for example, the Book of Mormon, which describes exactly the formula we seek in putting action into hope and faith to deliver a knowledge of God: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”
As there is no substance to the claim that God does not reveal anything anymore, and that only the Bible can be the sole revelation to Christendom, on the say-so of a man, a man, by the way, who claims there is no God [so, what else is he going to claim?], I, also being a man, declare that God can speak to any damn fool He pleases, thank you very much.
I will particularly raise this claim against many Christians who also believe God stopped talking to man when he revealed to John the words God knew would conclude His Bible some hundred years later, and has clammed up since.
Why? Because we claim He no longer reveals to man? Tell me when we were granted omnipotent power to cause that. Omniscient power. Blasphemy, then? I didn’t limit God. Y’all did that. I’m claiming He still reveals to man, and always will.
So, study the words of Moroni above. He gives a formula as dependable as 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = ∞. The following formula may be used in conjunction with the latter simple sum by saying:
This < ∞
𝚺 1
N = 1 N. [sorry, this formula messes up in the comments - can't make it right]
Which effectively says: sum the reciprocols of natural numbers given in the first formula until the total is above infinity. In other words, repeat the first formula exactly until cows come home and you have acquired all the truth you need and want.
If the truth you seek happens to be: “Does God exist,” ask, as noted by Moroni’s formula, “Does God exist?” If all elements of the formula are engaged under the conditions noted, then refer to the end of the fourth, and the fifth verse. No further citation needed; try the formula as given. Citation will occur, direct from God by personal revelation, just as He revealed to Peter the divinity of Christ. I am serious. But, as the prophet, Yoda said: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”
*all references to “OED” are linked to a paid members-only site that cannot be accessed by non-members. Unless you are a member, you must take my word of honor on these definitions. I swear upon my faithful quoting of same.
1 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
2 Holy Bible, Acts 2: 3
3 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193042?redirectedFrom=substance#eid *
4 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 2
5 Holy Bible, Matthew 16: 15 - 17
6 Holy Bible, John 4: 24
7 Bach, Richard, Illusions, the adventures of a reluctant messiah, Dell, 1977
8 Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 17
9 Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5
III Bible Contradictions do not disprove God
Yes, I’ll acknowledge there are plenty of biblical contradictions, so Pro need not argue the point too heavily; I’ll likely agree with him. [memo: again, I’ve pre-written this and now that Virtuoso has posted round 1, I wholeheartedly agree with all he says about this, with a couple of exceptions I’ll develop later, while disagreeing on conclusions drawn, but will restrain until round 2 rebuttal]. Where I think we’ll separate is that in spite of these contradictions, I still believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. In no wise do I suggest the Holy Bible is infallible. That this is so is evident just by a comparative read of the translations and transcriptions from the predominately Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and predominately Greek texts of the New, into the popular languages of today; i.e. Latin, English, French, German, etc. Pro has acknowledged this point, but, even if translations were spot on correct, there would still be perceived contradictions, as Pro has also addressed. Does this mean the Holy Bible is not the Word of God? No, it means it is the product of inspired men. Even inspired men make mistakes, even while discussing the truth. The Holy Bible simply is not a product manufactured by the power of God. Neither is the Torah, the Qu’ran, and many other examples of holy writ outside of the Abrahamic religions. They are the products of men. As Pro offered, “…the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.”
However, lets look at the products of science: Is the concept of geocentrism true science? It once was, a mere 2,500 years ago. So was heliocentrism in the 17th century, just 400 years ago. Now? No. Contradiction, yes; backward and forward, because galactoctocentrism is no longer the accepted science, either, but it was.
Scientific contradiction?
Observe that we once considered there were but four elements: earth, air, water and fire. Is that contradicted today? Need I cite? There are plenty of other examples, such as the nature of DNA, which Darwin poked at, among others, and, some twenty years later, more was discovered of the phenomenon of DNA, but only by an enterprising Swiss physician/researcher who decided to make serious inquiry by use of the discarded afterbirth of some unidentified birth [amniotic sac, placenta, and umbilical]. From refuse, we made the first significant foray into understanding the stuff of human genetic patterning. Not necessarily contradictive, but certainly ironic.
That there are biblical contradictions, I’ll agree, but Pro’s stool of three legs is now two [or one since he has combined two of them]. Contradiction just got whacked, because the phenomenon occurs to science, too. It’s a balancing act from here on, and I have given a suitable offering to exhibit faith, but I have not yet given evidence for God. The path to that evidence is faith, that elusive sixth sense.
IV How to work faith
How does faith work? Rather, how do we work with faith to acquire knowledge, to see “the evidence of things not seen?”
Oh, how I wish Paul had extended his 11th chapter of Hebrews, because I am confident he knew the path of hope, to faith, to knowledge of God. Perhaps he did, and it has been maliciously removed [I cannot prove that, and will not make the attempt], or ignorantly removed [same disclaimer], or, it was never there [same disclaimer].
IV.a Faith defeats fiction
Well, fortunately, Pro’s quote by Richard Dawkins in round 1 is relevant: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:…” Yes, as one would expect some character of fiction sitting atop the heap of despicable characteristics that follow to be. By this description, that fellow is truly vile, and Dawkins spares no horses in the description… of a fictional fellow. So, if it is fiction, why is Dawkins, a renowned atheist, so wrapped around the axle on the subject? If it’s fiction, enjoy the story, and move on to the next book.
II Revelation
Paul does not tell us that this substance and evidence are matters to be assessed by our typical senses, however, he does tell us that these things are revealed to us: “For by it [faith] the elders obtained a good report.” That is, a thing was revealed to them that they had not known before it was revealed. There is other evidence of revelation, and that it is from God: In Matthew, we read of the experience when Jesus asked his apostles whom others said Jesus was, and they replied that some thought he was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias… Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
A careful read of the following verses, which many consider the evidence that Peter was “the Rock” upon which Christ’s church was founded, will expose a different interpretation; that revelation is the rock upon which Christ’s church is founded.
Revelation, then, that sublime communication from God, which many consider to have ended with the end of the Holy Bible, is an ongoing phenomenon, ongoing to anyone who expresses the faith described by Paul. Ongoing, because one may ask: why did God appear and speak to men in ages past, even up to 2,000 years ago, but has since ceased this activity?
No wonder people such as my opponent, believe God does not exist. They’ve seen no modern evidence that He still communicates. Even many who believe God exists stop at the point of embracing the idea of modern revelation form God. They will even pray that all suffering of mankind cease, as if they expected this revelation, but no other, and on the basis of the apparent failure of God to comply, lose their faith and determine He is not, or He would remove the suffering.
They ignore an important consideration. They who still believe insist that God is omniscient and omnipresent. I agree; He is. However, I also believe that having such power does not compel Him to express that power. My neighbor, who is at some distance from my home, has the power to knock down the fence between our properties. So do I. That we mutually agree to keep it in place is the simple demonstration of this point of having power, but not necessarily inclined to use it.
There is an argument that God does not exist because it does not make sense that an unembodied God should make an embodied man [and the rest of the world, as well], to achieve an unembodied state, like that God, except that man cannot become like God, they say, therefore, He, God, made an embodied man to… or else an embodied man made an unembodied God to… it’s a circular reference by whichever reference of who made whom.
So what, pray tell, insists that God is unembodied? Yeah, yeah, there’s that scripture [conflict?] in John, “God is a Spirit…” and that feeds the above argument with the circular reference. No one gets anywhere on a merry-go-round. My opponent argued, in Comments that he had, “three arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.” [memo: this was all written up to now before Virtuoso posted his first round, and he has combined the second two arguments into one] On the whole, I will argue these matters by rebuttal in round 2, but for now, I will close on the matter [but not entirely – I’ll leave some for rebuttal] of “contradictory properties.”
Revision of round 1 with headings - #1
This is a classic debate. Always has been, always will be, at least until such time as someone, God, if no one else, exhibits the undeniable evidence in His favor. One might argue, even then, that the evidence is not sound. Privilege, I suppose, is the grand gift of agency; even the privilege to deny.
I. It’s about faith and evidence
Let me note, first, Pro’s #8 comment in the Comments tab: “It’s all about faith, not evidence.” Pro may not accept biblical, or for that matter, other scriptural reference, but since pro has not defined sourcing limitations, and since, clearly, such volumes that some consider holy writ exist, whether or not one believes their content, one may apply the same denial for the same reason to Scientific American, for example; a monthly magazine to which I once subscribed and considered as a reliable source of information. As past issues are now available online, I no longer subscribe. Men and women write it. So was, for example, the Bible. I see no evidence that God wrote one jot or tittle of it. Inspired, yes, by my observation.
So, I will claim first, that it is all about faith and evidence. I will cite, first, from Hebrews in the New Testament, which gave about as valid a definition of faith as I have ever observed: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [bolded for emphasis]
I.a Faith > Substance
This is Paul, the Apostle, writing an epistle to the Hebrews – understood as Jews, then, and said of himself, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus… yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem].”
Relative to the verse from Hebrews, Paul allows that “faith” is a “substance” of things for which hope is the delivery of that substance. The Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, “OED”] has several definitions of this word, but highlights a first definition, which then splits by two subsets. I’ll key on two of them; theological, and philosophical.
“Substance: 1. Senses relating to the nature or essence of something.
“i. Substance [theo]: the divine essence or nature, esp, as that which the three persons of the Trinity are united as one”
“ii, Substance [philo]: A being that subsists of itself; a distinct individual entity; [also gen.] a thing, being”
I.b Faith > Evidence
Note that the substance is a matter of hope according to Paul; it is not necessarily a current acquisition, but something to be revealed in a future, but accessible time to come. Paul follows this hope by saying that faith is the “evidence of things not seen;” evidence understood to mean proof of a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or as empirically derived knowledge in a scientific theorem, but not currently seen. Apparently, “faith” is an ability to “see” with eyes that are not those mounted as a pair in the heads of humankind. I suppose Paul might have meant “spiritual eyes;” those tools of the Spirit, which know by a sense beyond the typical five physical senses we humans, share: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
We depend on these senses for much of what we call “empiric evidence,” or even “truth.” Loss of them is a tragic consequence, virtually negating ourselves from our world.
However, are we limited to these five? We know there are other, lesser beings with which we share the earth which possess other senses, such as echo location, and sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field. Is it, then, possible, since these other creatures mostly also share these five senses with us, that humans have access to additional senses? The idea may not be so impossible to consider. Is it possible that one of them may align with Paul’s definition of “faith?” A substance delivered by hope, and evidence of things unseen by human, physical eyes?
Yes, I see... I will hold comment until voting. This will be challenging as both of you are friends, and justice is blind? Good thing she's a woman who is as fickle as any other, and I am mute before her. Besides, I could always vote for Bernie. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the old white guy.
Such a good line. Oh, well. Really, I was not going to bring it up. I fear unicorns. Particularly invisible ones that happen to be pink. Got to be afraid of something; might as well be that.
I like how you handled the last round, offering a point I had not considered, and you raise a good argument. However, I consider the debate title as just a catch phrase, like an advertising hook to drawn interest. The real debate subject is in the description:“’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Gad to have you engaged in another debate! Good luck, my friend. I agree to your terms as stated. Read and weep all you who comment, but would not engage. Comment to your cows coming home. Meanwhile, Virtuso and I eat steak. [assuming you're a carnivore - can't make that assumption any more!]
I find the argument on either side as superfluous. Abortion is, by established law, a legal procedure. That law, by the way, is not Roe v Wade [1973] because it did not establish law by precedent, it merely decided it was a State-controlled issue, not Federal,and authorized States to make law consistent with their decision that abortion was legal. Some states already had such state law, but some had no law on the subject, and some had to revise current law to align with the Roe decision.
However, if I participate in voting on this debate, I will vote only on the basis you your relative arguments, as if there was no current legalizing law.
I am fascinated by this subject and will follow the proceedings with great interest, and will positively be a voter. I definitively come down on one side of the proposed debate, but I can divorce my proclivities and vote on the basis of the arguments presented. There is a particular subject I'm hoping will be presented by either participant, but I am not going to tip my hand as to its subject. I am hoping one of you will use it as an argument, but will wait until the argument phase has concluded and proceeded to voting before I mention it in comments. It will not be a subject on which I draw any conclusions in voting.
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.
eh bien, passionnés de quiche, ma recette pour quiche lorraine, le classique! That double 'rr' better be deep in the back of the throat, this isn't spanish.
can't give you my wife's pie crust recipe; it's a trade secret, but it's buttery, flakey decadence. Sorry, you're on your own.
the custard:
in a bowl, combine:
1.25 C cream Damn you, if you use milk, you are not my friend! Just put away your cholesterol counter, okay? This is not an everyday meal.
4 eggs- fresh-cracked
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp FRESH GRATED nutmeg. if you shake it from a glass jar - I don't care who the label is - you are not my friend
1 Tbs flour - best fresh ground, not store bought, but who has a wheat grinder besides me, and several million of my LDS friends?
blend with a wire whisk. No, do not use your electric blender. [in the kitchen, I'm a purist when it comes to custards. Treat your eggs with respect.
Set aside, you'll be back to it in a minute.
1 C fresh grated cheese. I do a blend, 3/4 C gruyère, 1/4 emmentaler [swiss, but if you find emmentaler, buy it. You're likely not to find g pre-grated. if you do, I wouldn't buy it, anyway.
six slices bacon, pre-cooked until just crisp, then broken into small [1/2" to 3/4"] This can be prepared in advance in stored in a tight container [zip-loc will do] in the fridge.
six crimini [button] mushrooms, sliced 1/4"
Set oven to bake at 350˚ F
If you're making a fresh crust, pre-bake while the oven warms up, about 5 min., then remove. Do the same if you're using a frozen pie crust. Use the deep-dish variety.
Layer the cheese, bacon, and mushroom, a little of each in each layer util you've filled the crust. Do not tamp down, you wanty the custard blen to fill in and around.
RE-whisk the custard mix, and pour it slowly, moving your bowl around over the cheese bend to near the top [don't over flow - you have to pick up the bloody thing to put it in the oven.
Melt 1 Tbs of butter [yes, BUTTER] and pour it slowly around over the surface. If you like, add a few grates of more nutmeg
Bake for 25 minutes - use a timer. Apple HomePod is good, but if you prefer Google, or Aria, or whatever her name is, go ahead. Who's gonna know?
Depending on your oven [I know mine, but all bets are off on yours] open the door and check you quiche with a toothpick. You're likely to need a little more time, may five minutes or so - every oven id different. You're looking for a semi-firm golden brown custard. If it still is soupy, bake more, but WATCH IT. You don't want scrambled eggs. Take it out, let it set for 5 min om the counter, and EAT. slice like an apple pie.
instead of the bacon, you can try caramelized onion, flaked salmon, crab, shrimp, lobster, or whatever floats your boat. Do a veggie with asparagus, broccoli, whatever.
Store-bought frozen???? Yeechhh! If that was your only taste of quiche, you were royally ripped off. It is highly possible that what you had was a frittata masquerading as a quiche. I've had some bad frittata, and some bad quiche [neither out of my kitchen. Get thee to a patisserie
This is a whimsical debate, but, once launched, I will apply the full measure of my argument. Seriously. To me, quiche deserves the effort. Hint: my secret: fresh nutmeg.
Shouldn't one start with finding out:
1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella.
From #3, I would inquire if the instigator is as successful.
You, my friend, are fond of saying I have not yet argued this or that, apparently forgetting I have a round remaining. I hesitated to advise you of this when you first started complaining about a schedule that has and remains mine to manage, regardless of your constant barrage of complaint. That you initiated this debate does not give you licenser to manage my schedule of argument. I say: patience, my friend. All will be revealed in my conclusion. Thanks for playing.
Thank you for voting. Very concise assessment.
My round 3 references:
1 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
2 https://asq.org/cert/six-sigma-black-belt
3 https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/
4 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, I, iii
5 Scott, Ridley, Kingdom of Heaven, 20th Century Fox, 2005.
6 Rafferty, Gerry; Egan, Joe, Stuck in the Middle with You, Stealers Wheel, Apple, 1972
7 https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/biologist/job-market/
Well, you hold onto your 24-hour day. It appears precious. But, you must remember it continues to expand in length, even as we speak...
I am not a Christian? News to me. But, thanks for your excommunication. Sorry, not recognized.
Hint: "ibid" is defined as: "in the same source (used to save space in textual references to a quoted work which has been mentioned in a previous reference)."
You don't click on an "ibid" reference; you click on the reference immediately above - in this case, ref #1. And if there are multiple "ibid" references in a string of references, each "ibid" reference refers to the one immediately above the first ibid reference in the string. If you would stop stopping at wiki, you would learn this typical referencing shorthand.
"Legally" is confused, Yes, your statement agrees with 1 USC §8, but disagrees with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004.
You said, "I purely made a claim this is what Science says." What, the science of NYC schools? The science of wiki?
Come on, dig deeper. You're supposed to win this debate, not me. I even agree with you, but not your science, so far.
Only problem is 2 problems:
1. define "fertilization. It's more than boy meets girl.
2. stop stopping at wiki, goddamit.
3. [there's always more than 2, in spite of what's said] most is not some. be specific.
Friendly suggestion: take more than 2 minutes.
To your question: yes
While I was composing my initial comment, and only after accepting the debate, you have altered your challenge. Is it "personhood" or is it "when life begins?" I submit there is scientific debate even on that. Since the debate title says "personhood," which, again, you have not defined, I will reject any argument from you declaring "when life begins." Make up your mind and hold onto it for a little longer than a few hours.
I accept taking the Con argument, but, yet again [I've done this before] I do so only from a position of it being a challenge because I actually favor the pro argument. However, without given definitions by Pro before the debate begins [in my judgment, definitions, without prior recording, will cause the debate to turn on these factors. If Pro is to take the first round first, these definitions ought to be recorded in the description so that a contender knows what the deal is before the debate begins. Common courtesy, folks.
How do you define "a day?" It's relative scholastically, but, does it really matter in the end since I'll wager you believe God is omnipotent? Or, are there limitations, exceptions? Or, consider that, although omnipotent, God is not compelled to act on the power He has. So, maybe His "day" is not only a 24-hour period, but may be eons in the course of the sun across our sky. In fact, we already know that just 600M years ago, earth's "day" by our modern perspective, was just 21 hours long. Our day is increasing in time even as we speak, increasing by 0.007 seconds every century.
thanks for voting
As religiously inclined as I am, I find little benefit to proving government by the Bible, or vice versa.
1. You actually trust China's numbers? That's like holding out your hand to an angry dog.
2. The China vs. US and other Euro nations have such a vast difference in population [China 1.4B, and US/Euro, combined, 0.523B] that total death rates just as a hard number does not reflect the total impact of covid-19. You will note that the rating used is deaths per 1,000, or deaths per 100,000, etc. That way, the statistics are normalized taking in account that huge difference in relative populations. By that statistical normalization, China's deths per x exceed USA + Europe, combined. If you don't understand statistics, you're lost. I am a certified six sigma black belt. I am not lost.
No problem. My 4th waived.
I absolutely agree with Blamonkey. This will be a fun debate. So, let's cross swords, sheath them, and come out with words. Something about the pen is mightier than... or some such nonsense. Bonne chance, mon vieux.
Your post #25 alleged that "Some debates can be started by simply asking a question while not favoring either side of the argument. It can mean that the (Pro) side is confused of a situation & wants to find an answer."
Debate is a process of argument that establishes, first, the nature of the debate [X is the function of Y, for example] and two sides then argue in support of, or against the proposition. Pro/Con is derived from Latin, "Pro et Contra," meaning, literally, "For and Against. In other words, both sides are certain of their arguments. Debate is not the vehicle to move from doubt on a subject to full confidence of understanding. That's another process. It's called learning.
Revision of round 1 with headings - #4
IV.b Faith expanded by God’s continued revelation
However, contrary to Pro’s claim, citing a modified syllogism from Theodore Drange “If the God of Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation.” According to whom? Teddy Drange? Who’s he? Well, I know who he is, and he has a doctorate in philosophy and religion. I know of another fellow. Richard Bach. He’s an author. No, he doesn’t have credentials like Drange, but his credentials are biting: “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.” I agree. Who will tell God He cannot reveal anything more than the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible conclude with the verse: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
In truth, how can there be more scripture revealed after that? Well, because as John was writing those words on the Isle of Patmos, the “Holy Bible” did not yet exist; that was not the book to which he referred. It was his book, Revelation, his scroll upon which he was writing. John, having witnessed much, knew better than to limit God.
IV.b.1 Working faith: a new revelation
So I will offer, for example, the Book of Mormon, which describes exactly the formula we seek in putting action into hope and faith to deliver a knowledge of God: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”
As there is no substance to the claim that God does not reveal anything anymore, and that only the Bible can be the sole revelation to Christendom, on the say-so of a man, a man, by the way, who claims there is no God [so, what else is he going to claim?], I, also being a man, declare that God can speak to any damn fool He pleases, thank you very much.
I will particularly raise this claim against many Christians who also believe God stopped talking to man when he revealed to John the words God knew would conclude His Bible some hundred years later, and has clammed up since.
Why? Because we claim He no longer reveals to man? Tell me when we were granted omnipotent power to cause that. Omniscient power. Blasphemy, then? I didn’t limit God. Y’all did that. I’m claiming He still reveals to man, and always will.
So, study the words of Moroni above. He gives a formula as dependable as 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = ∞. The following formula may be used in conjunction with the latter simple sum by saying:
This < ∞
𝚺 1
N = 1 N. [sorry, this formula messes up in the comments - can't make it right]
Which effectively says: sum the reciprocols of natural numbers given in the first formula until the total is above infinity. In other words, repeat the first formula exactly until cows come home and you have acquired all the truth you need and want.
If the truth you seek happens to be: “Does God exist,” ask, as noted by Moroni’s formula, “Does God exist?” If all elements of the formula are engaged under the conditions noted, then refer to the end of the fourth, and the fifth verse. No further citation needed; try the formula as given. Citation will occur, direct from God by personal revelation, just as He revealed to Peter the divinity of Christ. I am serious. But, as the prophet, Yoda said: “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”
*all references to “OED” are linked to a paid members-only site that cannot be accessed by non-members. Unless you are a member, you must take my word of honor on these definitions. I swear upon my faithful quoting of same.
1 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 1
2 Holy Bible, Acts 2: 3
3 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193042?redirectedFrom=substance#eid *
4 Holy Bible, Hebrews 11: 2
5 Holy Bible, Matthew 16: 15 - 17
6 Holy Bible, John 4: 24
7 Bach, Richard, Illusions, the adventures of a reluctant messiah, Dell, 1977
8 Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 17
9 Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5
Revision of round 1 with headings - #3
III Bible Contradictions do not disprove God
Yes, I’ll acknowledge there are plenty of biblical contradictions, so Pro need not argue the point too heavily; I’ll likely agree with him. [memo: again, I’ve pre-written this and now that Virtuoso has posted round 1, I wholeheartedly agree with all he says about this, with a couple of exceptions I’ll develop later, while disagreeing on conclusions drawn, but will restrain until round 2 rebuttal]. Where I think we’ll separate is that in spite of these contradictions, I still believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. In no wise do I suggest the Holy Bible is infallible. That this is so is evident just by a comparative read of the translations and transcriptions from the predominately Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and predominately Greek texts of the New, into the popular languages of today; i.e. Latin, English, French, German, etc. Pro has acknowledged this point, but, even if translations were spot on correct, there would still be perceived contradictions, as Pro has also addressed. Does this mean the Holy Bible is not the Word of God? No, it means it is the product of inspired men. Even inspired men make mistakes, even while discussing the truth. The Holy Bible simply is not a product manufactured by the power of God. Neither is the Torah, the Qu’ran, and many other examples of holy writ outside of the Abrahamic religions. They are the products of men. As Pro offered, “…the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.”
However, lets look at the products of science: Is the concept of geocentrism true science? It once was, a mere 2,500 years ago. So was heliocentrism in the 17th century, just 400 years ago. Now? No. Contradiction, yes; backward and forward, because galactoctocentrism is no longer the accepted science, either, but it was.
Scientific contradiction?
Observe that we once considered there were but four elements: earth, air, water and fire. Is that contradicted today? Need I cite? There are plenty of other examples, such as the nature of DNA, which Darwin poked at, among others, and, some twenty years later, more was discovered of the phenomenon of DNA, but only by an enterprising Swiss physician/researcher who decided to make serious inquiry by use of the discarded afterbirth of some unidentified birth [amniotic sac, placenta, and umbilical]. From refuse, we made the first significant foray into understanding the stuff of human genetic patterning. Not necessarily contradictive, but certainly ironic.
That there are biblical contradictions, I’ll agree, but Pro’s stool of three legs is now two [or one since he has combined two of them]. Contradiction just got whacked, because the phenomenon occurs to science, too. It’s a balancing act from here on, and I have given a suitable offering to exhibit faith, but I have not yet given evidence for God. The path to that evidence is faith, that elusive sixth sense.
IV How to work faith
How does faith work? Rather, how do we work with faith to acquire knowledge, to see “the evidence of things not seen?”
Oh, how I wish Paul had extended his 11th chapter of Hebrews, because I am confident he knew the path of hope, to faith, to knowledge of God. Perhaps he did, and it has been maliciously removed [I cannot prove that, and will not make the attempt], or ignorantly removed [same disclaimer], or, it was never there [same disclaimer].
IV.a Faith defeats fiction
Well, fortunately, Pro’s quote by Richard Dawkins in round 1 is relevant: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:…” Yes, as one would expect some character of fiction sitting atop the heap of despicable characteristics that follow to be. By this description, that fellow is truly vile, and Dawkins spares no horses in the description… of a fictional fellow. So, if it is fiction, why is Dawkins, a renowned atheist, so wrapped around the axle on the subject? If it’s fiction, enjoy the story, and move on to the next book.
Revision of round 1 with headings - #2
II Revelation
Paul does not tell us that this substance and evidence are matters to be assessed by our typical senses, however, he does tell us that these things are revealed to us: “For by it [faith] the elders obtained a good report.” That is, a thing was revealed to them that they had not known before it was revealed. There is other evidence of revelation, and that it is from God: In Matthew, we read of the experience when Jesus asked his apostles whom others said Jesus was, and they replied that some thought he was John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias… Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
A careful read of the following verses, which many consider the evidence that Peter was “the Rock” upon which Christ’s church was founded, will expose a different interpretation; that revelation is the rock upon which Christ’s church is founded.
Revelation, then, that sublime communication from God, which many consider to have ended with the end of the Holy Bible, is an ongoing phenomenon, ongoing to anyone who expresses the faith described by Paul. Ongoing, because one may ask: why did God appear and speak to men in ages past, even up to 2,000 years ago, but has since ceased this activity?
No wonder people such as my opponent, believe God does not exist. They’ve seen no modern evidence that He still communicates. Even many who believe God exists stop at the point of embracing the idea of modern revelation form God. They will even pray that all suffering of mankind cease, as if they expected this revelation, but no other, and on the basis of the apparent failure of God to comply, lose their faith and determine He is not, or He would remove the suffering.
They ignore an important consideration. They who still believe insist that God is omniscient and omnipresent. I agree; He is. However, I also believe that having such power does not compel Him to express that power. My neighbor, who is at some distance from my home, has the power to knock down the fence between our properties. So do I. That we mutually agree to keep it in place is the simple demonstration of this point of having power, but not necessarily inclined to use it.
There is an argument that God does not exist because it does not make sense that an unembodied God should make an embodied man [and the rest of the world, as well], to achieve an unembodied state, like that God, except that man cannot become like God, they say, therefore, He, God, made an embodied man to… or else an embodied man made an unembodied God to… it’s a circular reference by whichever reference of who made whom.
So what, pray tell, insists that God is unembodied? Yeah, yeah, there’s that scripture [conflict?] in John, “God is a Spirit…” and that feeds the above argument with the circular reference. No one gets anywhere on a merry-go-round. My opponent argued, in Comments that he had, “three arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.” [memo: this was all written up to now before Virtuoso posted his first round, and he has combined the second two arguments into one] On the whole, I will argue these matters by rebuttal in round 2, but for now, I will close on the matter [but not entirely – I’ll leave some for rebuttal] of “contradictory properties.”
Revision of round 1 with headings - #1
This is a classic debate. Always has been, always will be, at least until such time as someone, God, if no one else, exhibits the undeniable evidence in His favor. One might argue, even then, that the evidence is not sound. Privilege, I suppose, is the grand gift of agency; even the privilege to deny.
I. It’s about faith and evidence
Let me note, first, Pro’s #8 comment in the Comments tab: “It’s all about faith, not evidence.” Pro may not accept biblical, or for that matter, other scriptural reference, but since pro has not defined sourcing limitations, and since, clearly, such volumes that some consider holy writ exist, whether or not one believes their content, one may apply the same denial for the same reason to Scientific American, for example; a monthly magazine to which I once subscribed and considered as a reliable source of information. As past issues are now available online, I no longer subscribe. Men and women write it. So was, for example, the Bible. I see no evidence that God wrote one jot or tittle of it. Inspired, yes, by my observation.
So, I will claim first, that it is all about faith and evidence. I will cite, first, from Hebrews in the New Testament, which gave about as valid a definition of faith as I have ever observed: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [bolded for emphasis]
I.a Faith > Substance
This is Paul, the Apostle, writing an epistle to the Hebrews – understood as Jews, then, and said of himself, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus… yet brought up in this city [Jerusalem].”
Relative to the verse from Hebrews, Paul allows that “faith” is a “substance” of things for which hope is the delivery of that substance. The Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, “OED”] has several definitions of this word, but highlights a first definition, which then splits by two subsets. I’ll key on two of them; theological, and philosophical.
“Substance: 1. Senses relating to the nature or essence of something.
“i. Substance [theo]: the divine essence or nature, esp, as that which the three persons of the Trinity are united as one”
“ii, Substance [philo]: A being that subsists of itself; a distinct individual entity; [also gen.] a thing, being”
I.b Faith > Evidence
Note that the substance is a matter of hope according to Paul; it is not necessarily a current acquisition, but something to be revealed in a future, but accessible time to come. Paul follows this hope by saying that faith is the “evidence of things not seen;” evidence understood to mean proof of a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or as empirically derived knowledge in a scientific theorem, but not currently seen. Apparently, “faith” is an ability to “see” with eyes that are not those mounted as a pair in the heads of humankind. I suppose Paul might have meant “spiritual eyes;” those tools of the Spirit, which know by a sense beyond the typical five physical senses we humans, share: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
We depend on these senses for much of what we call “empiric evidence,” or even “truth.” Loss of them is a tragic consequence, virtually negating ourselves from our world.
However, are we limited to these five? We know there are other, lesser beings with which we share the earth which possess other senses, such as echo location, and sensitivity to earth’s magnetic field. Is it, then, possible, since these other creatures mostly also share these five senses with us, that humans have access to additional senses? The idea may not be so impossible to consider. Is it possible that one of them may align with Paul’s definition of “faith?” A substance delivered by hope, and evidence of things unseen by human, physical eyes?
Yes, I see... I will hold comment until voting. This will be challenging as both of you are friends, and justice is blind? Good thing she's a woman who is as fickle as any other, and I am mute before her. Besides, I could always vote for Bernie. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the old white guy.
Such a good line. Oh, well. Really, I was not going to bring it up. I fear unicorns. Particularly invisible ones that happen to be pink. Got to be afraid of something; might as well be that.
I like how you handled the last round, offering a point I had not considered, and you raise a good argument. However, I consider the debate title as just a catch phrase, like an advertising hook to drawn interest. The real debate subject is in the description:“’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Gad to have you engaged in another debate! Good luck, my friend. I agree to your terms as stated. Read and weep all you who comment, but would not engage. Comment to your cows coming home. Meanwhile, Virtuso and I eat steak. [assuming you're a carnivore - can't make that assumption any more!]
I find the argument on either side as superfluous. Abortion is, by established law, a legal procedure. That law, by the way, is not Roe v Wade [1973] because it did not establish law by precedent, it merely decided it was a State-controlled issue, not Federal,and authorized States to make law consistent with their decision that abortion was legal. Some states already had such state law, but some had no law on the subject, and some had to revise current law to align with the Roe decision.
However, if I participate in voting on this debate, I will vote only on the basis you your relative arguments, as if there was no current legalizing law.
I am fascinated by this subject and will follow the proceedings with great interest, and will positively be a voter. I definitively come down on one side of the proposed debate, but I can divorce my proclivities and vote on the basis of the arguments presented. There is a particular subject I'm hoping will be presented by either participant, but I am not going to tip my hand as to its subject. I am hoping one of you will use it as an argument, but will wait until the argument phase has concluded and proceeded to voting before I mention it in comments. It will not be a subject on which I draw any conclusions in voting.
I agree. It is the last, abstainers, who may outnumber Democrat voters for Trump, who are the greatest concern to Democrats, and to Virtuoso
I notice on a subsequent debate proposal, you had already increased the count. 😀
I submit that a "characters per argument" of 1,000 in each round is not enough to make typical debate argument, rebuttal, and defense. For example, your round 1 argument, according to my words-with-spaces counter sums your argument at 998 words+spaces. I suggest your future debates allow a count in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. If you propose a difficult and/or controversial subject, maybe more. Doesn't mean you must use so many characters, but more it is prudent.
No victory for either of us, yet. There's still 7+ days for voting Just don't continue vote bombing
Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.
Thanks to both of you for voting.
Thanks for voting again.
"Rate per million & average were used as an example. jeeeeeze"
An example that does not hold because the two are not related statistical models.
Nevertheless, taking a Pro side, one is expected to present arguments favoring the Pro side, and full dedication to that side. Wavering in debate is weakness. Got to be committed, or the debate isn't.
Thanks for your votes
When you quote from other sources, and properly cite those sources by reference, you are not violating copyright. In fact, you are supporting their copyright by doing so. Who told you otherwise? And what's their source?
"Citing. When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. ... Commonly, a book citation includes the book title, author, publisher, edition and year of publication... When you use material from a copyrighted source, you must properly cite it. This identifies where the material was found and shows that the material is not your original idea but is borrowed. You should cite the source for both paraphrased ideas and direct quotes. The citation should include enough information for a reader to be able to locate the original source." https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/copyright-laws-citing-sources-16438.html
What, pray tell, is preventing you from quoting from other sources than from Wiki. You seem adept at quoting from Wiki, why not from other sources?
It is your opponents' duty to do your sourcing job? Absurd. See my argument about seeking fresh water. So, if your source is the gutter, you expect someone else to find a better source for you? Find your own better source, and let that be challenged, if it can be. You click on your better link and quote it. And if that is not sufficient, find a further link from that first generation link. Find the best water you can find yourself. That is your job, and yours, alone. I'm as valid as I can be. If you disagree, see if a moderator will agree with you, or me.
Diarrhea, malnutrition, heart disease are diseases that do not have direct-effect vaccines, that is, that have vaccines developed strictly for the purpose of prevention or treating these diseases. There ares vaccines that have the side effect of amielorating these diseases, but none of them have vaccines developed as an original purpose of combatting them.
Please note in my voting in giving sourcing to Con, that I reference the analogy of seeking fresh water from its best sources, as compared to my quote from Wikipedia about itself. The conclusion of that comparison ought to be a teaching moment for future debate efforts. Wiki is your savior? Low-ball savior, my friend.
And you will lose your bet. Same as you have lost your phantom "yes." Look, in the upper left corner of your monitor, when you are on a given debate wherein you are the protagonist, you, and only you, are saying "yes" to the proposition of the debate if and when you have initiated the debate and haver chose to be the Pro. God in heaven! no wonder you still don't get it that rate per million is NOT an average!
A reminder to my opponent that just 5+ days remain for a round 3 argument, and avoidance of forfeiture, having already forfeited round 2.
Sorry to disagree, but none of the three historians you mentioned were contemporaries to Christ. The closest to fitting that description was Josephus, who was born in 37 CE, in Jerusalem, within the decade [third of the century] of Christ's crucifixion. The others, Tacitus, was born in 56 CE, and Sueetorius, in 69 CE.
Thanks for voting.
Sorry, forgot to mention: I accept all definitions and debate details. I do not know how to add pictures, so I'll appreciate a primer. I note that we can forfeit one round and, depending on the will of judges, not be penalized, but it appears more than one is automatic forfeiture of the debate. Don't want to risk that; I plan to avoid it completely.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
This is such a tempting subject, as I am fluent in New Kingdom hieroglyphs grammar, and as such familiar with the culture, but the former has little to do with architecture, and I am inclined to accept that the dating of these great structures is currently in error. However, my appreciation of the ancient Egyptian civilization is too tempting to refuse, so I'll take this on as a reluctant Con. This will be fun to contradict my own thinking. I'm glad you're allowing a good amount of time for argument; I'll need it! Anything may happen. Thanks, and good luck, my friend.