Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of “good,” and the corresponding antithesis of “evil”
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/
Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
No, it is not like debating who will win WWII because that event had a definitive outcome it is not a matter of debate. Although "On the Origin of Species" is 161 years since it's original publication, and Genesis is roughly 3,500 years in existence, the outcome of that debate obviously is still engaged. But, you're missing the entire premise of my proposition. It is not a debate of whether Genesis or Darwin is correct, but whether or not they actually cooperate in separate descriptions of the fact of origin and diversity of life on earth.
"It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to 'an ongoing process of creation.'"
So, that is my beginning argument. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate, isn't it? So, engage, and demonstrate by your arguments that I am wrong. Isn't that what debate is all about? However, may I remind you that when pasta is cooked, as is its intent, and has been for far longer than we've been alive, it is flexible.
I hesitate acceptance of an expansion of the discussion, both on the "Genesis" and the "Darwin" sides, because I obviously cannot commit to ubiquitous equivalence in advance. otherwise, we would have to agree that as the discussion might expand beyond my originally stated construct, that non-equivalence of design "intent," and random natural selection "intent," may occur. It is the equivalence of the two stated sources that I perceive, and have the burden of proof, to demonstrate. It is that aspect, burden of proof, that becomes endangered. I created the construct of Genesis vs. Darwin because that was the issue in the original debate that occurred immediately coincident with the publication of "On the Origin of Species." There were no other elements joining the debate. In effect, it is the definition of definitions that are virtually always a part of the debate format. The construct is not to weight the discussion in my favor because I can conceive of arguments that oppose my suggestion. Can you?
For example, below, SkepticalOne mentions Pastafarinianism as debatable construct. However, that belief post-dates the original discussion by over 140 years. Shall we also consider the universe construct of turtles, black holes, and Mickey Mouse as sorcerer? If you wish to engage such a debate, create it. This one is my debate; I define the construct, thank you very much.
With only 30 minutes remaining in the voting, I don't think I'm going to acquire the points necessary to overtake your lead. Therefore, my congratulations to you on an enjoyable, lively debate. I hope we have opportunity to debate again. In the meantime, my friend, good luck in other endeavors.
@SkepticalOne
Definitions can change. I'm wiling to negotiate.
By the way, I like your avatar. Mickie is a favorite of mine, but note, even in your modified imagination of the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco, Adam and God's fingers are still just not touching, whereas, who is that tucked into God's left shoulder, the redhead in his embrace who also lovingly caresses His left arm? Mickie told us: that is Eve, "the mother of all living." He said this is her creation, in God's embrace, as opposed to Adam's creation at finger-length, and more. Says something about creative priorities, doesn't it? And, by your illustrative editing, Adam get's it.
What's a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sue me. I took him at his word: "The problem isn’t that, in fact I had ‘quit’ the website if you analyse [sic] my activity before that statement that I was quitting."
I'm 18 days old on this site. Don't know the proclivities of anyone, yet, though I do recognize premature efactulation when I see it.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
pro stated: "...pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants."
Now that round 1 is complete. let's clear the air. Pigs are not ruminants, confirmed. However, there is no confusion over the definition of "cud." What the raw material happens to be is of no consequence; grass or some other vegetation. "Cud" is any vegetation consumed that is literally regurgitated to the mouth to be re-chewed. According to the OED: "Rumination: 2.a. The action of chewing the cud; the chewing by a herbivorous animal of partially digested food from the rumen." According to the same source: "Rumen: The first and largest stomach of a ruminant, in which food (esp. cellulose) is partly digested by bacteria, and from which it may pass back to the mouth as cud for further chewing, or on into the reticulum."
Given that the Torah stipulated two conditions: cloven hoof AND chewing cud [rumination], and that both must be met, it doesn't matter that pigs eat grass, in addition to just about everything else, eating grass, alone, is not descriptive of rumination; therefore, pigs do not meet the Torah's prohibition against non-cud chewers.
I was hoping to have a debate with you. I like your arguments, generally. I commit to serious debate, no person attack in disagreement, only lively opposition, and opportunity to compare different opinions with open mind. Hope you agree. Good luck
Singularity, what the hell do Jews and CNN have to do with this debate. Unless you ave something positive to contribute, be ignored.
Was "Day" as described in Genesis truly an exact 24 hours? proof is lacking, considering that the Hebrew word used in ancient texts we have is yom, which can imply an earth day, or a period of much longer duration.
Was man [Adam] created perfect? Not as he was tempted, and succumbed to temptation, and not if his mortal life was intended to die.
Were animals created perfect? No, they, too, were created to die.
Was creation, itself, perfect? Not by the results. Perfection is not a beginning state; it is achieved.
"Could have" is a conditional past tense conjugation. Such conjugation indicates an event that could have happened, but did not happen. You seem to imply that because God [that is a title, not a name] is omnipotent that He must act. You have the power to walk across the street against the traffic light, but it does not mean you must. God could have created perfect man, but He did not, did He? You think that was by accident? Nope, there was purpose in such a creation, just as there was purpose, as I explained, to prevent Noah's flood victims from crossing a threshold from which they could not reverse.
Uselessless: you like my opponent, gravitated to addressing "Useless" as a matter of frequency of use of a word. No, I explained in round 3 that "'Useless' is interpreted by my opponent as a function of mere frequency of use, and not recognized by my opponent as a function of unaccomplished purpose, arguing merely that “floccinaucinihilipilification” is a word used less often than 'if'"
Did you miss that?
You said "Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands."
My round 2 argument:
"[Opponent's] Arg #1: 'Any word with multiple meanings…” [a polyseme] “…is more useful than a word with only one meaning.'
"My opposing proof: Polysemes, particularly when they are also homonyms [polysemes with the same spelling, and usually the same sound] have the disadvantage of being ambiguous. When meaning is ambiguous [as your eight definitions show proof] usefulness declines. How useful is that? It goes for virtually “any” polysemic homonym."
Did you miss that, too?
Doesn't help the process if you don't read with comprehension, and then vote by your limitations. Thanks.
Nor did you break any records citing sources that confirm your "proof."
Agreed, which is why I rankle at such comments by climate alarmists who claim that their science is "in." A science that is, at best, 200 years old. Compare to sciences such as physics, astronomy, geology, which are thousands of years old, and still do not make that claim.
Wow, just in reviewing Con's Round 1 argument, and in Pro's round 2 response, I find 3 glaring issues against Con's argument:
1. Con's list of 12 studies are full of references to "evidence favors," "Exposures suggest," no significant effect,"meta analysis suggests," and "might be attributable to chance." Fully 7 of teh 12 cited sources left allowance for the possibility of relationship. That is hardly conclusive evidence of a lack of relationship.
2. Pro's round 1"Dr. Plotkin" argument, revealing that the good doctor would proceed with DTaP vaccine even lacking empiric evidence is not convincing for Con's argument.
3. Pro's round 1 study of Con's 12 studies demonstates citable instances where all 12 fail to show relevance to the precise vaccine DTaP, let alone to consistent age-group related study. That's enough on which to comment. I will be voting on this dfebate, and cannot yet say how I will vote, but these three examples are telling.
Do you know what [sic] means? See to your own grammar and syntax, my friend.
"Classic."
Indeed. Please be around for voting.
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
How, then, do you explain science's use of Einstein's "Relativity," which has always had the predicate, "Theory of...?"
Thank you for voting. For the benefit of other voters before voting is finished, I shall make comments regarding your RFDs by private message.
Thanks for your vote
Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.
Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.
Thank you for voting
It is possible that a president could be elected by a smaller sample that 22% of the electorate if a large enough segment of registered voters do not vote.
"The argument only works..." your "if" statement is not true, by the Constitution, and, unless that is changed, remains un true, therefore, not presently a factor.
Faithless electors will always be a concern, but, to date, they have never affected the outcome of an election.
Thanks for voting
References for round 4:
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
2 https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 6
4 Holy Bible, Proverbs 127: 3, 5
5 Campbell, Beverley, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2003, page 35
6 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 8, page 213
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 20
8 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 15, page 445
references for round 3
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 18722
2 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
4 Darwin, Charles, Origin of the Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Chapter One, page 1.
5 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 28
We need voters on https://www.debateart.com/debates/1810/does-a-good-perfect-man-struggle-with-evil
references for round 2:
1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 1872
2 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 - 1872
3 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Genesis 1: 26
4 http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer
5 O.E.D., “Interactive”
6 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 3
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26
8 https://www.creators.com/read/kids-talk-about-god/09/14/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-first-commandment-you-shall-have-no-other-gods-before-me
9 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 171
10 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 13
11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842081/
14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100403/
15 Holy Bible, Genesis 5: 15
16 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.
Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.
You're welcome. Will definitely have fun. Perhaps one day, we'll find a compatible debate. I look forward to that. Be well.
References for round 3:
1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of “good,” and the corresponding antithesis of “evil”
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/
Rabbit hole all you wish, or don't. My vote, particularly the second, was entirely based on voting protocol from the policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." I submit, and, in fact, the second in the list of voting policies deal with my voting result: in a critical features of your argument, [personhood, and consent] you had opinion followed by no sourcing. I awarded where argument included sourcing. You were not awarded points on each of the issues I referenced in voting. Such as not sourcing your opinion that consent means having a body "used," when the matter of a symbiotic relationship, woman and fetus, have no conscious decision of having anything taken or given.
A double miss. Re: human speciality, my argument did not point to cells or DNA. If you will read my argument [goes both ways, bud] I questioned your parenthetic clause, by asking for THAT source.
The nature of either "multiply and replenish the earth," or "There is grandeur in this view of life..." is that pregnancy, whether caused by consent, or not, establishes a symbiotic relationship but neither woman nor fetus can claim right over the other. In fact, the fetus is the ultimate innocent in the whole affair. As you cannot decide whether you accept personhood from conception [you claim both sides of that argument, against it in round 2, and for it in round 4], I say your arguments negate themselves, and Con's consistent argument prevails. You did no show argument supported by sourcing that demonstrates which condition, sex by force or consent, is the greater condition of pregnancy. As long as you are concerned about frequency of abortion before/after Roe and as relevant regarding abortion vs. restrictive laws, you must cite your sources that consent is a viable argument. Your sourcing is all about the numbers of abortion, but not for consent/no consent. You speak to the matter of consent in round 1 under "human rights," but have no sourcing. You address it again in round 45, but again, do not cite sources. As your argument is simply that the woman must always be granted legal right of preference, it is flawed on that basis.
I'm acquainted with Orson, and we share a common understanding of the subject under debate here.
References in round 2 argument:
1 https://www.boredpanda.com/fennec-fox-vegan-diet-animal-abuse-jumanji-sonia-sae/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
2 Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48
3 Holy Bible, Matthew 5, 6, 7, inclusive.
4 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 16
5 Book of Mormon, I Nephi 3: 7
You argue, "I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much [too] nuanced to stop there." However, then you argue, "What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but you offer no source for that opinion; in particular, the parenthetic clause. Who says that? A credible source? Then cite it. But, you did not. Then you argue, "I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people," negating your entire argument against your opponent's relative to the person issue. If you also acknowledge that the unborn are people, what's the nuance? That another, the woman, also has nuance? If you admit that is so, I submit your argument is flawed. Thus, my decision. Do not assume I am driven by my personal preference.
As a counter argument by a pro-choice: "In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation." I do not regard that as a "better" argument. Frequency should not necessarily be a legal point any more than a singular murderer is any less illegal that a serial killer. It is matter of moral degree, perhaps, but not legal. Nor, should one consider a debate "lost" until the voting is finished. Let us not replace one indiscretion with another.
But, I will accept the judgment of another moderator.
References for round 1:
1 https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/, McCloskey, H.J. 1960, “God and Evil” Philosophical Quarterly 10: 97-114
2 Suzy Platt (1993). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Barnes & Noble. p. 123. ISBN 9780880297684.
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17
4 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
5 https://books.google.com/books?id=3cUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=does+perfection+imply+that+one+is+not+tempted&source=bl&ots=kAr19CdrIp&sig=ACfU3U2j7Cn_VrnWPGg3jQUcyvmSZi5vfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLiej7u6LoAhVO7J4KHVBSC40Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20perfection%20imply%20that%20one%20is%20not%20tempted&f=false
In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.
Then don't understand. Entirely your choice
R1 references:
1 https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/04/voters-prefer-traditional-communication-president/
2 https://www.bigeasymagazine.com/2018/12/04/the-progressive-policies-of-george-h-w-bush/
3 https://qz.com/1727/what-barack-owes-dubya/
4 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1
5 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/04/mccain-s-not-really-a-conservative.html
6 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/liberals-voice-concerns-about-obama-016292
7 https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/14/obamas-hot-mic-moment-russian-president-2012-was-u/
8 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/liberals-voice-concerns-about-obama-01629
No, it is not like debating who will win WWII because that event had a definitive outcome it is not a matter of debate. Although "On the Origin of Species" is 161 years since it's original publication, and Genesis is roughly 3,500 years in existence, the outcome of that debate obviously is still engaged. But, you're missing the entire premise of my proposition. It is not a debate of whether Genesis or Darwin is correct, but whether or not they actually cooperate in separate descriptions of the fact of origin and diversity of life on earth.
"It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to 'an ongoing process of creation.'"
So, that is my beginning argument. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate, isn't it? So, engage, and demonstrate by your arguments that I am wrong. Isn't that what debate is all about? However, may I remind you that when pasta is cooked, as is its intent, and has been for far longer than we've been alive, it is flexible.
I hesitate acceptance of an expansion of the discussion, both on the "Genesis" and the "Darwin" sides, because I obviously cannot commit to ubiquitous equivalence in advance. otherwise, we would have to agree that as the discussion might expand beyond my originally stated construct, that non-equivalence of design "intent," and random natural selection "intent," may occur. It is the equivalence of the two stated sources that I perceive, and have the burden of proof, to demonstrate. It is that aspect, burden of proof, that becomes endangered. I created the construct of Genesis vs. Darwin because that was the issue in the original debate that occurred immediately coincident with the publication of "On the Origin of Species." There were no other elements joining the debate. In effect, it is the definition of definitions that are virtually always a part of the debate format. The construct is not to weight the discussion in my favor because I can conceive of arguments that oppose my suggestion. Can you?
For example, below, SkepticalOne mentions Pastafarinianism as debatable construct. However, that belief post-dates the original discussion by over 140 years. Shall we also consider the universe construct of turtles, black holes, and Mickey Mouse as sorcerer? If you wish to engage such a debate, create it. This one is my debate; I define the construct, thank you very much.
With only 30 minutes remaining in the voting, I don't think I'm going to acquire the points necessary to overtake your lead. Therefore, my congratulations to you on an enjoyable, lively debate. I hope we have opportunity to debate again. In the meantime, my friend, good luck in other endeavors.
You're very welcome, my friend
@SkepticalOne
Definitions can change. I'm wiling to negotiate.
By the way, I like your avatar. Mickie is a favorite of mine, but note, even in your modified imagination of the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco, Adam and God's fingers are still just not touching, whereas, who is that tucked into God's left shoulder, the redhead in his embrace who also lovingly caresses His left arm? Mickie told us: that is Eve, "the mother of all living." He said this is her creation, in God's embrace, as opposed to Adam's creation at finger-length, and more. Says something about creative priorities, doesn't it? And, by your illustrative editing, Adam get's it.
What's a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Glad you're amused, Doctor. I don't think Ragnar was. Not a dig, Sir Ragnar, just an observation.
Sue me. I took him at his word: "The problem isn’t that, in fact I had ‘quit’ the website if you analyse [sic] my activity before that statement that I was quitting."
I'm 18 days old on this site. Don't know the proclivities of anyone, yet, though I do recognize premature efactulation when I see it.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
pro stated: "...pigs chew cud by the definition of the Torah. Unfortunately, pigs aren't ruminants."
Now that round 1 is complete. let's clear the air. Pigs are not ruminants, confirmed. However, there is no confusion over the definition of "cud." What the raw material happens to be is of no consequence; grass or some other vegetation. "Cud" is any vegetation consumed that is literally regurgitated to the mouth to be re-chewed. According to the OED: "Rumination: 2.a. The action of chewing the cud; the chewing by a herbivorous animal of partially digested food from the rumen." According to the same source: "Rumen: The first and largest stomach of a ruminant, in which food (esp. cellulose) is partly digested by bacteria, and from which it may pass back to the mouth as cud for further chewing, or on into the reticulum."
Given that the Torah stipulated two conditions: cloven hoof AND chewing cud [rumination], and that both must be met, it doesn't matter that pigs eat grass, in addition to just about everything else, eating grass, alone, is not descriptive of rumination; therefore, pigs do not meet the Torah's prohibition against non-cud chewers.
Thank you.
I was hoping to have a debate with you. I like your arguments, generally. I commit to serious debate, no person attack in disagreement, only lively opposition, and opportunity to compare different opinions with open mind. Hope you agree. Good luck
Singularity, what the hell do Jews and CNN have to do with this debate. Unless you ave something positive to contribute, be ignored.
Thank you
Sorry, didn't read your message until after I posted my round 2.
Was "Day" as described in Genesis truly an exact 24 hours? proof is lacking, considering that the Hebrew word used in ancient texts we have is yom, which can imply an earth day, or a period of much longer duration.
Was man [Adam] created perfect? Not as he was tempted, and succumbed to temptation, and not if his mortal life was intended to die.
Were animals created perfect? No, they, too, were created to die.
Was creation, itself, perfect? Not by the results. Perfection is not a beginning state; it is achieved.
"Could have" is a conditional past tense conjugation. Such conjugation indicates an event that could have happened, but did not happen. You seem to imply that because God [that is a title, not a name] is omnipotent that He must act. You have the power to walk across the street against the traffic light, but it does not mean you must. God could have created perfect man, but He did not, did He? You think that was by accident? Nope, there was purpose in such a creation, just as there was purpose, as I explained, to prevent Noah's flood victims from crossing a threshold from which they could not reverse.
I'll set it up and set you as opposing argument
Uselessless: you like my opponent, gravitated to addressing "Useless" as a matter of frequency of use of a word. No, I explained in round 3 that "'Useless' is interpreted by my opponent as a function of mere frequency of use, and not recognized by my opponent as a function of unaccomplished purpose, arguing merely that “floccinaucinihilipilification” is a word used less often than 'if'"
Did you miss that?
You said "Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands."
My round 2 argument:
"[Opponent's] Arg #1: 'Any word with multiple meanings…” [a polyseme] “…is more useful than a word with only one meaning.'
"My opposing proof: Polysemes, particularly when they are also homonyms [polysemes with the same spelling, and usually the same sound] have the disadvantage of being ambiguous. When meaning is ambiguous [as your eight definitions show proof] usefulness declines. How useful is that? It goes for virtually “any” polysemic homonym."
Did you miss that, too?
Doesn't help the process if you don't read with comprehension, and then vote by your limitations. Thanks.